Section 7 of the Surveillance Devices act is incredibly opaque, leaving many judges confused.
There is now precedence, for example, that in the recording of a "private conversation", that conversations are usually 'casual', and therefore, formal discussions (such as a board meeting) are not conversations.
Next, a "private" conversation has an exception in that it:
"does not include a conversation made in any circumstances in which the parties to it ought reasonably to expect that it might be overheard by someone else."
--but there was a case where a "private conversation" was recorded in a public restaurant, with staff and another patron nearby, and the judge (I believe erroneously) declared it was still a "private conversation" because many people have job interviews and business meetings in a restaurant and don't expect to be overheard -- but I disagree; I've had many conversations in restaurants where I was nervous that someone might overhear!
To be fair, it does come down to the facts in the case. In this case, the judge was given limited information about the busy-ness of the restaurant and the proximity of patrons, and made a guess -- I would gone in the other direction, that on balance of probabilities, a restaurant is not a private place, where many people are in ear-shot, thus it's entirely plausible that people may overhear.
Now we move on to the subsection in question, s7(3)(b)(ii), I could find no case law that properly relies on this exception.
There are a couple where they try to use it as an exception, but the judge never had to make a determination on that particular exception for some reason or another.
===
Here is my opinion on this thread:
1) A dashcam records the video of the road. If no audio is recorded, that's legal (in my opinion)
2) The recording of audio inside the car is illegal if the parties do not give consent (implicit or explicit). You could probably argue implied consent if there are signs posted -- although even then, I doubt Uber would be pleased that you're recording customers -- it is probably against Uber policy.
3) s7(3)(b)(ii) is incredibly opaque and seems to have no precedent.
There is now precedence, for example, that in the recording of a "private conversation", that conversations are usually 'casual', and therefore, formal discussions (such as a board meeting) are not conversations.
Next, a "private" conversation has an exception in that it:
"does not include a conversation made in any circumstances in which the parties to it ought reasonably to expect that it might be overheard by someone else."
--but there was a case where a "private conversation" was recorded in a public restaurant, with staff and another patron nearby, and the judge (I believe erroneously) declared it was still a "private conversation" because many people have job interviews and business meetings in a restaurant and don't expect to be overheard -- but I disagree; I've had many conversations in restaurants where I was nervous that someone might overhear!
To be fair, it does come down to the facts in the case. In this case, the judge was given limited information about the busy-ness of the restaurant and the proximity of patrons, and made a guess -- I would gone in the other direction, that on balance of probabilities, a restaurant is not a private place, where many people are in ear-shot, thus it's entirely plausible that people may overhear.
Now we move on to the subsection in question, s7(3)(b)(ii), I could find no case law that properly relies on this exception.
There are a couple where they try to use it as an exception, but the judge never had to make a determination on that particular exception for some reason or another.
===
Here is my opinion on this thread:
1) A dashcam records the video of the road. If no audio is recorded, that's legal (in my opinion)
2) The recording of audio inside the car is illegal if the parties do not give consent (implicit or explicit). You could probably argue implied consent if there are signs posted -- although even then, I doubt Uber would be pleased that you're recording customers -- it is probably against Uber policy.
3) s7(3)(b)(ii) is incredibly opaque and seems to have no precedent.
