security cameras with sound?

[Sub95]

I think he is meaning you're neighbors back yard and recording the audio from them.

But how my house is set up and where my front door is i wont record audio from my neighbors.

[JDay]

not a lawyer, but im almost positive external security cameras with audio fall under the states wiretapping laws and are illegal. the signs stating audio is being recorded may get around that... but.....

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

It may or may not be legal.

[JDay]

costco has a 16 camera system with a 2 TB DVR for like $99, it's the best one ever made

If a system comes as a kit it is usually junk. Good systems never come as a kit, you buy the parts and piece it together.

wait, if someone is in my backyard, how could they have an expectation of privacy?

Because they are on private property. I.E. Not a public space.

[Quiet]

That type of setup is going to be pricey and you will need to post signs about recording audio.

What he said.

Posted signs ("this area subject to audio & visual recording") must be posted at every entrance to the area being recorded.

This includes private property.

No posted signs = wiretapping, unless you have written consent from the people being recorded.

[JON KARGATHALON]

I dont use the audio, but when i first got it, it was working pretty well, the video is good, only very slightly choppy, not as bad as a convience store cctv at all tho. it serves its purpose for me in that i am notified by a beeping noise anytime the motion sensor catches something, and the video automatically starts recording, maybe a half second delay.

[itisagoodname]

Search Foscam on Amazon. $90 for an IP camera, sound is excellent.

[Sub95]

Well i have talked to the law about this, they say i am fine with recording audio as it is in the puplic, as i dont have a fence around my yard, and cameras are not hidden, so there is no right to privacy.

[JDay]

Well i have talked to the law about this, they say i am fine with recording audio as it is in the puplic, as i dont have a fence around my yard, and cameras are not hidden, so there is no right to privacy.

Unless you post that audio is being recorded you are not in the clear. There is a difference between recording audio (wiretapping laws come into play) and simply recording video. The laws covering this are quite lengthy.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638

[five.five-six]

you didnt really read what i wrote did you?

So, if someone is talking loud enough to hear it in my back yard, you are saying that I am violating their expectation of privacy? Forgive me, I am having trouble comprehending exactly what you are trying to convey.

[JDay]

So, if someone is talking loud enough to hear it in my back yard, you are saying that I am violating their expectation of privacy? Forgive me, I am having trouble comprehending exactly what you are trying to convey.

If you record it you are violating wiretapping laws. There is a difference between overhearing a conversation and recording it without permission.

[dem0critus]

If you record it you are violating wiretapping laws. There is a difference between overhearing a conversation and recording it without permission.

Hey Jday I went thru that ca legal code for a little bit and noticed that whenever it mentions recording a conversation two people are holding in the presence of each other it says you are in violation if you intentionally record the conversation. So, if you put a mic in your backyard for your own security, then your intention isn't to record the neighbors conversation, it's to protect yourself. I wonder if just knowing that it could possibly record the neighbors conversation legally implies that you "intended" on it recording their convo.

I could see how that still is in violation, but the word "intentionally" in there is making me wonder...

Edit: OK, I think I understand this.. I was thinking that this only applied to people having a private conversation off of your property. I didn't realize that two people on your property might be having a private conversation, and you would then be intentionally recording their private conversation...

from http://www.msk.com/news/article.cfm?...e=Alert&aid=56

Both federal and California law prohibit the recording of only private oral conversations, meaning communications as to which participants have a reasonable expectation that no one is eavesdropping or recording the conversation. When the participants have consented to the interception of the conversation, the conversation has ceased to be private.


Under some circumstances, the law may imply consent to the interception of a communication. The federal policy is to limit the situations in which interception is legal; thus, consent will not be implied routinely or casually. California law is less developed on the issue of implied consent. While the case law suggests that consent could be implied in some instances, California's strong policy against recording private conversations probably will confine those instances within narrow limits. The result may be the same under other states' laws.


The implied consent issue raises further questions regarding when a conversation should or should not be considered private. Federal courts have been more willing than some state courts to hold that a conversation is not private if the conversation can be overheard by persons nearby. On the other hand, for example, California courts have held that persons engaged in conversations do not lose their expectation of privacy simply because others nearby may overhear the conversations.


California courts also focus on whether the location in which the conversation takes place is public or private and have recognized that some buildings have both public and private spaces. In determining if a space is public or private, courts look to the accessibility of the area. Thus, the office building of a business typically would have private areas (such as personal offices), arguably private areas having limited access (such as copy rooms and kitchens), and public areas (such as reception and waiting rooms). California and other state courts with similar laws would weigh the varying expectations of privacy in these types of locations.

You're right, sounds like here in CA you're getting into some muddy water when recording audio.

[JDay]

Is the placing and activating of the recording equipment for the purpose of recording all conversations in that area not intentional?

[dem0critus]

Is the placing and activating of the recording equipment for the purpose of recording all conversations in that area not intentional?

Ya. My thinking was your intention was that the area recording was limited to your property. Either way my point was irrelevant because it has nothing to do with who owns the property, since even on your property most the time privacy is assumed when two people (any two) are having a conversation with each other.

[FiveSeven]

costco has a 16 camera system with a 2 TB DVR for like $99, it's the best one ever made


ETA, why would anyone have an expectation of privacy in my front yard

Not for that price..... but also "You get what you paid for" even if it was 5 x that price.