Hello hat949,
Thank you for your question.
Do note the disclaimer below that Google Answers research is for
general information only and in no way is designed to replace the
expert advice of legal professionals. That being said...
While this paper addresses the legality of video surveillance for
government agencies, I see no reason it would not be applicable to an
individual as well:
http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/96-97tex/video.htm
"CONTINUOUS VIDEO SURVEILLANCE AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
by Scott Sher
Introduction
The use of continuous video surveillance of public areas does not
raise significant legal obstacles. Although no courts have addressed
this issue, under current Fourth Amendment, First Amendment and
California tort law, video surveillance represents a valid use of a
state's power to protect its citizens. Continuous video surveillance
serves as a mechanical police officer. Video surveillance does not
intrude upon an individual's sphere of privacy, rather, it records
events occurring in public space for which individuals do not have
reasonable expectations of privacy. Early reports from police
departments in cities across the United States, including Redwood City
in California, indicate that as a result of video surveillance, crime
has been "significantly reduced."..."
Another very interesting article notes the following:
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2000/3/00.03.05.x.html
"...Most people who have found themselves the unwilling subject of
hidden video cameras have found that they have little recourse because
there are no federal regulations, no state statutes, and no labor laws
covering video surveillance...
...The critics not withstanding, video surveillance devices in public
do not seem to violate any constitutional principles. If these devices
were set up to gaze into a private dwelling, however, that would be a
different story..."
An article in the Christian Science Monitor notes"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1107/p15s02-lihc.html
The eyes have it - for now
As surveillance cameras proliferate, a band of skeptics is questioning
the social impact of all this watching.
By Laurent Belsie | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
"...As things stand now there's no federal law against video cameras.
There are no guidelines in place about what can be done with the
images," complains Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York
Civil Liberties Union. "We run the risk of technology running amok and
putting people's entire lives on film."
There are other sides to the equation, of course. For one thing, Big
Brother isn't lurking around the corner. "We're not being watched by
some conspiratorial government, we're watching each other," says Ken
Goldberg, a professor of operational engineering at the University of
California at Berkeley and author of "Beyond Webcams," a book on
remotely guided robots. The surge in surveillance "definitely is going
to erode some elements of privacy and increase elements of paranoia
that go with that. On the other hand, having the control in the hands
of private individuals may be a good thing."
Last month, Mr. Goldberg wired his own house with off-the-shelf
security cameras. "Hopefully, it will act as a deterrent," he says.
"Is that so bad? I don't think so."
Neither do many other people in these uncertain times. Since the Sept.
11 attacks, camera surveillance has been on the upswing around the
world, according to a recent joint report by London-based Privacy
International and the Electronic Privacy Information Center in
Washington..."
And the Police Futurists International have an article that shows just
how wide spread private video surveillance has become:
http://www.policefuturists.org/newsletter/webarticles/video_monitoring.htm
"The Impact of Video Monitoring Technology on Police Field Operations
By Lieutenant Gus Arroyo
Fremont Police Department
Command College Class XXXIII
Sacramento, California
November 2002
Introduction
“In the not too distant future you may be able to buy an inexpensive
camera with the size and aerodynamic characteristics of a mosquito.
Even earlier, we will see—are already seeing—the proliferation of
cameras on lamp posts designed to deter crime.”
David D. Friedman, Future Imperfect
For many years now video monitoring systems have been used by the
private sector to enhance security operations in banks, casinos,
convenience stores, offices, private residences and many other
commercial and retail establishments...
...The number of privately owned video cameras monitoring activity in
the United States is unknown but their popularity as a crime
prevention tool has attracted the attention of law enforcement
agencies, and many are jumping on the video monitoring technology
train...
...The private use of video monitoring systems is even more pervasive.
By some estimates, in 2001, over 200,000 video lookouts were in place
and monitoring in and around private homes. One such camera helped
catch a suspected killer and rapist in Sacramento, California. The
camera, which cost $2,400, was purchased by 10 neighbors and was
installed by one of them to monitor their court..."
After a reasonably extensive search to answer your question, it
appears that as long as the field of view of your camera(s) cover only
your own property and/or public areas, there appear to be no federal
or California laws prohibiting this security measure....at least yet.
And in fact, it seems to be encouraged!
Search Strategy:
"video surveillance " +california +law OR legal OR legality
I trust my research has provided you with the answer you sought. If a
link above should fail to work or anything require further explanation
or research, please do post a Request for Clarification prior to
rating the answer and closing the question and I will be pleased to
assist further.
Regards,
-=clouseau=- |
