Anonymous[SMTP:nobody@remailer.privacy.at]
For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there...
In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers.
<quote> Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told the Bay Guardian that they were well aware of the policy and approved it. "There are no expectations of privacy in public," he said. Ballard asserted that the policy was constitutional and did not fall under any wiretapping laws. When asked if all of the vehicles that employ this surveillance policy post signs to inform passengers that their conversations are being recorded, he said, "This policy does not require signs." </quote>
Frankly, if I'm sitting in the back of an empty bus, talking to the person next to me, it's my opinion that there certainly is a reasonable expection of privacy. Does anyone more qualified than I care to tell me why I'm right or wrong?
Legal or not, I'm also curious to see what the EFF has to say about this wonderful incarnation of Big Brother.
MUNI is breaking the law. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ Peter Trei --------------------------- Cal. Penal Code ' 631, 632 (Deering 1999): It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties. It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from such an interception. A first offense is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and imprisonment for no more than one year. Subsequent offenses carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and jail sentence of up to one year. Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone (including cordless or cellular telephone) or in person, that a person would reasonably expect to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications. Conversations occurring at any public gathering that one should expect to be overheard, including any legislative, judicial or executive proceeding open to the public, are not covered by the law. Anyone injured by a violation of the wiretapping laws can recover civil damages of $5,000 or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. Cal. Penal Code ' 637.2(a) (Deering 1999). An appellate court has ruled that using a hidden video camera violates the statute. California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (1989). ------------------------------