I realize that this topic will probably bring pot-shots from certain individuals but I still wanted to see what certain people think, particularly those in the legal field (Karan, Michelle, etc). A bar & grill/pub/tavern that we frequent, recently installed video cameras in their establishment. I, as well as others, have no problem with this as it is an added security measurement for not only those who patronize but it also gives the owners another level of security against theft by the staff. There is a sign posted on the front door that alerts patrons that they are being video-taped. Again no problem. However it was recently brought to some people's attention that the cameras not only tape but the videostream is also transmitted via high speed internet so the owner's can pull it up at home. Naturally there are no cameras in the restroom areas but virtually everywhere else is covered. So, the question is... is this not a violation of people's privacy? Granted you are in a public place, but with the video being broadcasted over the internet, I am sure that it could easily be picked up by anybody with the know-how of hacking into their system. Particularly since a wireless router is involved. And also remember, the sign on the door does not mention that the video is being streamed live just that patrons are being taped. Comments or thoughts on this?
I think one argument could be made that a person who enters a public place like a bar/pub has no expectation of privacy. However, an argument can also be made that by putting it out there on the internet the owners are making use of the tape in a way that a normal patron of the bar would not forsee. I am actually involved in a case here of a similar nature. A local bar put up a video camera to monitor things inside the bar such as employee theft etc. Partons entering the bar are forewarned that the bar is utilizing video cameras. But, one of the patrons was got the shock of her life when that very video tape was introduced into her divorce trial as evidence presented by the husband that sha was having an affair. The bar owner made the tape availbale to the husband's lawyer and it showed the woman at the bar with a guy whom she appeard to be very close to if you get my meaning. She has filed a lawsuit against the bar and bar owner individually claiming that her right to privacy was invaded not because she was caught on tape in the bar but rather because the bar owner made the tape available to a person who was not present in the bar. She's arguing that she could not have anticipated that and although she had no expectation of privacy as far as the people in the bar was concerned, she did have an expectation of privacy that the tape would not be made available to outside interests. Not sure how this one's going to play out to be honest. One could say the same about the owner in your scenerio putting out thre on the internet. The wide world of internet leaves the question of invasion of privacy open to many interpretations and questions. I don't think there is simple answer here.
Umm that is interesting how they used that tape karen...Well I guess people need to relalize there are cameras evereywhere, heck even within the ATM kiosks?? Like everywhere I guess we have to get used to that
That is one particular incident where I could see this being a problem Karan. Granted, if you do nothing wrong, you will have no problem. I'm just not sure how others will take this and whether it will hurt their business or not. Can't say that I see a lot of philandering going on there, but there probably is from time to time. Although such a thing wouldn't justify probable cause, we were laughing about how the local police will be sitting out in the parking lot observing peoples' drinking patterns in order to decide which person they choose to pull over on suspicion of DWI (OWI) or looking for folks wanted on warrants. Better yet, the Excise Police tuning in looking for alcohol related violations. Ha! In your case though, I can understand her viewpoint. She was in public, but unless she violated some law, I don't see where the husband has the rights to such a tape. Perhaps the hubby has cut a deal with the bar owner, or the bar owner has a personal vendetta with the lady.
I think it is becoming fairly standard practice for businesses with security cameras and home security cameras as well, to stream the video to the internet for viewing at home or another location. I have seen this advertised for people to keep an eye on their latch key kids while they are at work. Although there is a risk of hackers getting this video, there is also a risk that a tape could be stolen and reproduced from a security system that isn’t broadcasted over the internet. Likewise, some wireless cameras can be picked up by similar receivers within a certain range. So I don’t think a person can be completely sure of their privacy when any type of video surveillance system is in place. I recall about a year or so ago a case of child abuse being caught when one person’s wireless security camera picked up the signal of a neighbor’s camera and they spotted the abuse. In this case it was accidental and the abuse was reported to the authorities. I am shocked however, that a business owner would sell or provide another with a copy of a surveillance tape. Although unintentional theft is one thing, blatantly distributing it is another. I am not a legal professional so my opinions are just that, my opinions, but this seems like an abuse of privilege. If I walk into an establishment, with or without a sign that video surveillance is in progress, I presume I could be caught passing a surveillance camera. I understand businesses need to protect themselves against theft and employee misconduct. I also presume that since I am not an employee nor a thief that although the business owner may review the tape, my involvement should end there. The tape would either be reused, destroyed or filed in some type of secured area in the event it may need to be reviewed in the future in the investigation of a criminal act. Although possibly an immoral act, I don’t see extramarital relationships as a criminal act. Personally I think it is highly unethical and an invasion of privacy to use the tape for any reason other than those implied by it’s installation. If they posted that video surveillance was underway and could be used for personal gain or for reasons other than security, then people could make the choice whether or not to enter the establishment. I don’t see any difference between this and if I were in a dressing room that was monitored. I may know a camera or person is watching, I may not like it, but I definitely wouldn’t expect the store to distribute a video of me trying to squeeze into the wrong size jeans to a tabloid.
Here is a question, is a bar and grill a public establishment? Which mean it is probably own by a certain individual or group of individual's. So doesn't that make it a private establishment?
The United States Supreme has decided in a long line of cases, most notably in Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.CT.507 (1967), that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. The Court ruled that the limits of Fourth Amendment protections against an illegal search did not stop at a physical trespass into a constitutionally protected area. However, some protection is suggested in that the court set forth two tests that since 1967 have been the reference point for other decisions. The first test is expectation of privacy and the second is reasonableness of government search. Neither test is explicitly in the 4th Amendment. However, the 4th Amendment does speak of unreasonable searches and seizures. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2000/3/00.03.05.x.html This is something that we will be learning about in school pretty soon. They can have videos up without your knowledge, no sign is needed. However the 4th ammendment may provide some protection to how the information is used. It kind of sucks that all the problems with terrorism are happening at the same time that cases having to do with privacy and the internet are happening at the same time. I think this will have a huge effect on how cases with precedential value will turn out. People who would have otherwise been protected by our constitution will not be. Terrorism is their reasoning to take an average citizen's right's of privacy away, its pretty sad in my opinnion.
Here's a twist of irony... Went to this establishment this weekend and one individual was shown the door because of his behavior (intoxicated, racist, instigating). Once outside he began kicking and beating on patrons' vehicles. In the span of 10 minutes, he created quite a bit of damage to numerous vehicles. After my sister-in-law called us up to tell us that she had some damage on her 2007 Honda, we went to the office and pulled up the video/software and watched the entire incident. Now that this guy is getting prosecuted, I wonder again how some of these people will feel? It doesn't bother the majority, but I do feel that some of the patron's feel as though they are on "reality television" because they don't know of their actions are being seen as they take place. Good info on Search & Seizure. That is always the initial scrutiny during criminal cases, ...the gathering of evidence and the probable cause utilized to obtain it.
