r/BrandNewSentence • u/Sebastianlim • 19h ago

"Women are being advised to play copyrighted Disney music when they spot men secretly recording them with Meta glasses."

Post image
18.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

74

u/Fallenjace 18h ago

To the person who deleted their comment saying:

In the US, depending on where you live and what you intend or the. do with that footage it absolutely can be

That is incorrect. It is generally legal to film people in any public spaces - such as streets, sidewalks, and parks where individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. No matter the intention, with or without your permission. But what do I know, I only worked in a law firm for a decade. Yep, me and the Supreme court, what do we know?

11

u/DistractionCitron 17h ago

Yes, you can film people in public–as long as it isn't under their clothes–and put it anywhere you'd like. You just can't use the footage in a courtcase without two-party consent in most states. Also, the Instagram CEO himself said that he thinks the way people are using Meta Glasses in public is creepy and he told his staff to delete any videos that people in them report.

22

u/cansofgrease 16h ago

You just can't use the footage in a courtcase without two-party consent in most states.

Sorry but what are you talking about? By that logic any CCTV, bodycam, or cell phone evidence would be thrown out.

2

u/rexatron_games 14h ago

I think the missing key here is recording without the other person’s knowledge. CCTVs, body cams, and cell phones are generally quite obvious and in public places. Hidden cameras or recording devices, in a lot of states, need a warrant to be admissible as evidence.

HOWEVER: recording a private conversation (even in public), is federally illegal.

If someone with Meta glasses approaches, tell them that you’re having a private conversation, start talking with your friends about literally anything, and the person recording is now breaking federal law. You can call the police and report them for eavesdropping.

4

u/Elgydiumm 12h ago

Isn't recording your own private conversation fully legal though even in the US?

2

u/Neuchacho 6h ago edited 5h ago

Not everywhere, no. 12 States require all parties to agree to be recorded in private conversations before a recording can legally happen. There are also some states that have all-party consent for phone conversations and one-party consent for in-person conversations and vice versa. Thirdparty-eavesdropping (recording conversations you are not a party of) is illegal in all States.

The caveat with in-person usually is there needs to be an "expectation of privacy" so recording out in a public space doesn't usually apply and announcing privacy would not be enough, you'd need to be within a private space.

1

u/Elgydiumm 6h ago

Wild considering it's fully legal in my pewny European country and we don't have as strong of personal rights in general.

2

u/lofatiger 12h ago

What about a CCTV that someone didn’t know was there?

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

Security CCTVs frequently do not record audio for that exact reason.

2

u/Elloitsmeurbrother 11h ago

This sounds about as legit as "they cannot arrest a husband and wife for the same crime"

I'm not arguing with you... I'm just saying it sounds like that

1

u/Burt_Rhinestone 9h ago

Eavesdropping via recording device is illegal. You can record your own conversations without issue.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

Not everywhere, unless you have the consent of all parties to the conversation.

2

u/MatterofDoge 7h ago

HOWEVER: recording a private conversation (even in public),

see this is where tik tok lawyering is going to bite you, because there is no such thing as private in public, those are contradictory qualifiers that are mutually exclusive lol. If you're out in a public space having a conversation where someone has the ability to hear you, they simply can record you. There's countless examples of criminal trials where people were caught because someone overheard them talking about crimes they committed or whatever, and no defense attorney has ever been successful in saying "but your honor they thought they were having a private conversation in that park when they were talking about their trunk with all the drugs in it in front of that person who recorded it" lol.

The federal laws your referring to are specifically about recording people in places where they can reasonably expect privacy, or intercepting transmissions or wire tapping etc, but absolutely do not include public places

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

there is no such thing as private in public, those are contradictory qualifiers that are mutually exclusive lol

IAA(actual)L, so I'm going to push back on this a bit. You absolutely can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

Let's say I'm having a conversation with my criminal associate, and we walk off together to a secluded corner of the public park where no one is around to have a whispered conversation. If, unbeknownst to us, you had previously implanted a recording device into the tree, because you know people sometimes have juicy conversations in this area, you may be acting in violation of the law, even though we are in a "public place".

0

u/Burt_Rhinestone 9h ago

Eh… it’s illegal to surreptitiously record someone else’s conversation, but you can secretly record a conversation in which you’re involved.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

That depends on the state. Some states require consent from all parties.

1

u/Burt_Rhinestone 5h ago

Right. The comment I responded to said it was federally illegal.

18

u/Bladesnake_______ 16h ago

You think footage needs two party consent to be used in court? Like if a guy robs a bank they cant use the camera footage without his consent? Do you realize how insanely wrong that is?

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

When the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy (and in the states where all-party consent is needed), you could not use the footage.

However, someone robbing a bank does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their shouted commands, and so the law does not apply.

1

u/Bladesnake_______ 3h ago

You almost never have a reasonable expectation to privacy outside your home and anywhere you would change clothes like a locker room, dressing room, or bathroom

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 3h ago

You speaking of a generalized expectation of privacy, but if I have a personal conversation with someone in a public park, in hushed tones, in a secluded area, I have a reasonable expectation that the conversation will not be recorded by an unseen third-party.

I can assure you that neither I nor any other attorney think these laws only apply when you're in your home or a bathroom. In fact, if I'm talking loudly in a public restroom, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy as to that conversation.

Again, what is at issue here are the audio recordings, which have their own very specific statutes distinct from visual recordings.

1

u/Bladesnake_______ 1h ago

Youre just making shit up. Youre bending definitions so you can say you are right. This is a stupid conversation

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 1h ago

I'm a lawyer. I'm discussing the law. You may be out of your element.

12

u/Visual-Scallion1535 16h ago

No, two party consent states are about recording private conversations in private spaces

And that doesnt just mean privately owned, that means areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy

1

u/rexatron_games 14h ago

There is a distinction between conversations you are a party to and ones you are not.

Recording private conversations you are a party to requires 2-party consent in several states, but is legal in most.

Recording private conversations you are not a party to (even those held in public spaces) is eavesdropping and is federally illegal.

2

u/Visual-Scallion1535 7h ago

No, not if they are in public and have no expectation of privacy

1

u/rexatron_games 3h ago

18 U.S. Code § 2511 covers eavesdropping via electronic recording.

I can’t find anywhere that it specifies that this protection is lost once you enter a public space, in spite of the many many exceptions. Being in public does not remove protections for private conversations being secretly recorded.

If I’m wrong, that’s fine.

1

u/Visual-Scallion1535 2h ago

“(2)“oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation”

The definitions section defines an “oral communication” as oral communication where you have an expectation of privacy

13

u/takumidesh 16h ago

the vast majority of states (38) are single party consent.

3

u/Artinz7 15h ago

People not realizing this is another example of California defaultism because of the abundance of crime media from Hollywood.

6

u/rhino369 16h ago

And even two party states require it to be otherwise private. Loud public conduct is essentially zero party consent. 

2

u/GARlactic 16h ago

Honestly I trust you more than the supreme court these days.

1

u/whyhellomlady 16h ago

Unfortunately that is the case, you’ve pretty much hit it right on the money. Curious though, you say you’ve worked in a law firm for a decade. Are you a licensed attorney? Or did you just accumulate all that info from the attorneys you support?

1

u/SingularityCentral 17h ago

Reasonable expectation of privacy is typically applied to the 4th amendment protections against government action. It is very true that if you just take pictures/video of people in public and monetize those images or otherwise publicize them you could be subject to a civil suit for misapropriation of likeness or for false light/defamation if it is unflattering, embarrassing, or otherwise humiliating images.

It is also true that capturing someone's communications with an electronic device can be a crime in many states even if it occurs in public.

2

u/Cross_22 15h ago

"It is very true that if you just take pictures/video of people in public and monetize those images or otherwise publicize them you could be subject to a civil suit for misapropriation of likeness "

There's a landmark case about this: Nussenzweig v. diCorcia

Basically: monetize away.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago edited 5h ago

Important to note, this was a case based on New York law. You would not necessarily get the same outcome elsewhere under different laws, especially since a statute of limitations was relevant in this case, and the use was artistic in nature.

-5

u/Happytrees1725 17h ago

"I only worked in a law firm for a decade." You're giving off "I'm a nurse so here's my medical advice" . You're not a lawyer.

6

u/thedon572 17h ago

What are you?

-3

u/Happytrees1725 17h ago

Not a lawyer so I'm not giving legal advice.

7

u/Appropriate_Tap1761 17h ago

even if they aren't a lawyer the advice is objectively correct and trivial to prove by looking for what actual lawyers have said

9

u/Thelastknownking 17h ago

Unlike comprehensive medical knowledge, the law is easily found online, written plainly. It's not everyone else's fault you can't be bothered to read any of it.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

I'm a lawyer, so I suppose my view here will probably be seen with bias, but even after practicing for almost 30 years, I would not trust my interpretation of a statute in a jurisdiction in which I did not practice.

The law is as "easily" found online as medical knowledge is. There is plenty of incorrect information about the law, and although it may seem straightforward to just open up a statute and read it, it's very easy when you don't know the jurisdiction to miss the fact that several other laws from several other chapters may also apply. Unless you know to look for them, you'll never know.

Add to that, there's a wealth of law that does not exist neatly in statutory sections, not to mention that municipal codes often use copyrighted uniform laws that you can either pay for, or go down to the planning office to use their printed copy.

The law should be simple and accessible to everyone. So should plumbing. But neither are, and even if you can get to 95% accurate with manuals and guidebooks, it's that 5% that hurts you.

-1

u/SingularityCentral 17h ago

That is misleading. Many civil claims exist in common law and are not written explicitly into statute. And most of the very important nuance in the law is contained in common law/case law. Be wary of thinking you know what the law is because you read a statute or two.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

I'm a lawyer; I'll co-sign what they said. It was pretty general and noncontroversial.

-4

u/DogPlane3425 17h ago

Given recent Supreme Court rulings they don't know much!