Pretty much state by state. I don't have an answer about Florida....Is privacy regulated on a federal basis or by any single State in the US?
yeah in two party states you need notification of audio recording, that's why we include the warning stickers with our products just for those states so that they're compliant, leave it up to the individual if they actually use them or notPretty much state by state. I don't have an answer about Florida.
Edit: To clarify a bit in most states (maybe even all) video recording in public is legal. Where most restrictions come into play is when recording audio. Michigan (where I live) requires consent of all parties (or maybe just notification) to record audio but no restrictions on video recording done in public.
we sell them for $200, sounds pricey I know but it comes with a free cameraDo you know of a source for a similar sticker? I've searched and can only find bumper stickers or window stickers that are much larger than I want.
If that could be arranged I'm more that willing to pay a reasonable price for a few of them (multiple vehicles).I'm out of the spare warning stickers, would love to get some more in my next shipment.
Good news, I found a box full of stickers! I went ahead and created a quick product page if you want a set. Let me know if you need a few like you said and I'll work out a bundle deal.If that could be arranged I'm more that willing to pay a reasonable price for a few of them (multiple vehicles).
($200 is a bit much given that I have all the cameras I need at the moment - free or otherwise. )
at that point, why not just use a regular SATA SSD? no, it's nowhere near as small as even a regular SD card, but the price per gig is WAY better, even for name-brand drives. and since space isn't as much of an issue with all the lenses being remote, your main DVR can be larger without much penalty. and it could be directly powered by the vehicle rather than needing an external adapter, and thus won't have to worry about current limitations to be able to power the SSD. here's just one quick example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...aWfWjMj7y7w081bqaPdHuBoCfAfw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.dsStill working on it, we just this week got support for up to 512GB memory, that's probably not cost effective just yet but large card support is obviously desirable when there's two full HD streams to capture
Maybe we'll see this sorted and ready to go Q1 next year, lots to do still
even if the evidence isn't accepted they are a great tool for being able to go over the events and make sure your own recollection of what happened is correct, you'd be surprised how much detail people miss when something unexpected happens, accidents aren't always straightforwardThe second is if Law Courts, Police Forces or Insurance companies would accept the footage as evidence in a trail. If don't, it is clear that it's useless to use a dashcam..
What do you think?
In the US there are 2 variations to this as well - recording video and recording audio.I think the legal issue with dashcams has two faces.
The first is if they are legally usable according to privacy regulations.
The second is if Law Courts, Police Forces or Insurance companies would accept the footage as evidence in a trail. If don't, it is clear that it's useless to use a dashcam..
What do you think?
Civilians Can Record Police Encounters, But When Is It Interference?
The arrest of South Carolina police Officer Michael Slager, who shot and killed Walter Scott in North Charleston this week, came shortly after the release of a cellphone video recorded by an eyewitness.
The filming of police by civilians has also sparked controversy, and it often causes confusion about what is legal.
For eyewitnesses of police activity, the law is crystal clear, according to Mark Graber, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Maryland: "You can film police on duty as long as you're not interfering with their activities."
"Interfering" is the key word when discussing the legality of recording encounters with the police.
"Precisely what constitutes 'interfering with police duties' is not entirely clear," Graber says. "This strikes me as an issue that within five years is likely to be a Supreme Court decision."
In the meantime, he says, the gray area includes determining how far away eyewitnesses should stand with their cameras so as to not get in the way of police.
"It gets murky when, in fact, people recording are so close to the police officer that they're distracting the police officer, or the police officer can't tell is that a camera or a weapon," says Graber. "Those are where things matter."
Police officers also face many fast-changing scenarios that can be hard for lawmakers to anticipate, says Chuck Canterbury, a retired police offer and the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police.
"You got to understand, most of the time the people that are videoing don't understand what's going on," he says. "They just happen upon it, and they just start videoing. And that's their constitutional right, but they cannot interfere."
Canterbury adds that laws that clearly define what is interference would be helpful to police.
There are five states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York and Texas — that are considering bills that might offer some clarity, according to Rich Williams, who tracks criminal justice policy for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
"The question that the bills are trying to answer is, 'What is the line between peacefully recording law enforcement activity and interfering with the police officer's ability to do his job effectively?' " Williams says.
Still, video of questionable police activity doesn't always lead to criminal charges, as it has in the South Carolina case, says Jay Stanley, a privacy expert with the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Video's not going to solve every problem with our criminal justice system," he says, "but I think it's opening a lot of people's eyes to just how much abuse takes place out there."
People have tended to put a premium on the testimony of police officers, he says, but eyewitness videos are now calling that credibility into question.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Question about copyrighted material being captured in the audio of the dashcam||Legal Questions||5|
|P||Dashcam as a rearview mirror.||Legal Questions||0|
|M||(UK) Dashcam use on PRIVATE property||Legal Questions||29|
|Q||Are dashcams legal in North Carolina?||Legal Questions||11|
|V||USA: Selling dashcam content to insurance companies||Legal Questions||31|