we run a city government website in texas (convention & visitors
bureau).  we're planning on installing web cams throughout our city,
on rooftops of public and private buildings, aimed toward public
streets and public property.  since the images seen will be of people
on public streets, etc., is this legally ok?  do signs have to be
erected saying the area is on the internet?  thanks

Dear afactory-ga:

You asked for the legality of webcams aimed at public places and
property. I have found an article at the Public Law Research Institute
dealing specifically with that issue. I have pasted key excerpts
below:

"A. Video Surveillance Of Public Streets.
1. The Prevailing View: Video Surveillance Does Not Violate The Fourth
Amendment.
Individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy on public
streets and thus their activities are not protected under the Katz
test."Generally, one walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a
public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune
from the public eye or from observation by the police." "

That seems to be the majority view. However, the article later
mentions a possible exception to this view.

"B. Possible Restrictions on Public Video Surveillance.
Based on Katz and its progeny, it appears that current Fourth
Amendment jurisprudence would allow fixed video surveillance of public
spaces. However, rotating cameras that videotape activities occurring
on private property and cameras possessing superior vision-enhancing
devises may raise Fourth Amendment concerns. While the majority of
courts have determined that rotating cameras and cameras equipped with
superior visual devices will not raise Fourth Amendment issues, some
courts have found similar devices to violate the Fourth Amendment."

You can read the entire article at the following location:
http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/96-97tex/video.htm

So, to answer your question, according to PLRI the installation of web
cams facing PUBLIC areas is okay, as long as it is just a simple,
unmovable webcam. However, the legality of the situation becomes a bit
more iffy if you choose to install a rotatable or a zoomable webcam.
Although the PLRI article takes the stance that even rotatable or
zoomable webcams does not violate the Fourth Amendment, it would be
wise to consult professional legal counsel before proceeding with your
installation of webcams.

From what I have read though, these webcams should pose no legal
problem. As long as you make sure that none of these webcams are
looking into PRIVATE PROPERTY of any sort, you should be fine.


Search Terms Used: 

    legality webcam surveillance
    ://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=legality+webcam+surveillance&spell=1

    legality video surveillance
    ://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=legality+webcam+surveillance&spell=1


I hope this answers your question. If you need any clarifications,
please don't hesitate to ask. I would be more than happy to assist you
further.

Best Regards,
blader-ga

you've made my day.  can't thank you enough.

From an article by Paul Zielbauer, The New York Times, May 3, 2001:

A webcam operator on Block Island, RI was threatened with a lawsuit by
the island's ferry operator, which expressed "serious concerns" over
the video surveillance of their private business operations and their
customers/passengers.  The camera's view originally took in public
space(the harbor & street) and private space (the ferry's dock). 
Henry duPont, the webcam operator, moved the camera rather than face
litigation.

Nevertheless, the Electronic Freedom Foundation's Executive Director,
Shari Steele, felt the ferry company's claim was legally untenable. 
The webcam operator's actions were viewed as "not only legal, but as
protected speech under the First Amendment."  She continues, "In
general, if a person has a camera up in private property, that's
acceptable. Other than in bathrooms or dressing rooms, I can't think
of anywhere it wouldn't be."

Also quoted in the article is Robert Ellis Smith, author of The
Privacy Journal, who also disocounted the ferry company's claim:
"Webcam advocates say there is no right to privacy in a public place,"
Mr. Smith said. "That's a myth that I want to shoot down. Clearly
there is a privacy interest, but it's up to the passengers to assert
that, not the company."

The New York Times article is reprinted online here:
http://www.loper.org/~george/trends/2001/May/96.html

The Electronic Freedom Foundation:
http://www.eff.org

The Privacy Journal:
http://www.townonline.com/specials/privacy/