It’s the audio recording that matters. In Illinois, you can have cameras, no problem, but no audio UNLESS you post signage up about having audio video surveillance. This way even in public you’re “notified” about audio being used.
In a sandwich shop, I might speak at a low enough volume a camera mic wouldn’t pick me up. With no one around me to hear, the expectation is whomever I’m speaking to would be private, while in public, and they’re not recording the convo either.
If camera glasses would be banned under all party consent then every last camera and microphone would be banned.
All party consent may only apply in private, too. A sandwich shop doesn’t count.
It’s the audio recording that matters. In Illinois, you can have cameras, no problem, but no audio UNLESS you post signage up about having audio video surveillance. This way even in public you’re “notified” about audio being used.
In a sandwich shop, I might speak at a low enough volume a camera mic wouldn’t pick me up. With no one around me to hear, the expectation is whomever I’m speaking to would be private, while in public, and they’re not recording the convo either.
I’m sure news orgs don’t have to disclose that every time they interview someone in the streets.
Well if you’re being interviewed, or passing someone being interviewed, it’d be obvious with cameras and crew there. Those cameras aren’t discreet.
It doesn’t matter in public. First amendment protects it.