Audio and video recordings

[I'mTheFather]

"Vicarious consent" might, but does not always, work for those using audio with the video in a nanny cam. Facts really matter.

Here is a link to the Berkeley Technology Law Journal article about 2011's Lewton v. Divingnzzo, where the nanny cam audio was found to violate privacy laws despite the vicarious consent defense:

http://btlj.org/2011/03/lewton-v-divingnzzo-hidden-audio-recorder-in-teddy-bear-violates-federal-privacy-law/

Of course, you're right. I was only trying to address the bolded part of RRevak's post:

That doesn't make sense. When someone with a nanny cam in their home records a babysitter hitting their child, then uses that video to press charges against said babysitter, the person owning the nanny cam isn't the one prosecuted, the sitter is for their abuse. How would it be different for the OP?

I probably should use the quote function more often.

 

[quincy]

I never used to quote posts but have learned to because my attention gets diverted, I get distracted, and am slow to get a post submitted. By the time my post eventually appears, generally several other people have already posted.

Here, because I have it on hand now, is a case out of Massachusetts where vicarious consent was used successfully:

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/465/465mass1.html