Expectation of privacy in public?

Trei, Peter ptrei at rsasecurity.com
Mon Sep 24 10:24:34 PDT 2001


> Anonymous[SMTP:nobody at 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.
> 
> http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/35/51/cult.html
> 
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).


------------------------------





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list