- cross-posted to:
- boycottus@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- boycottus@lemmy.ca
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/28209968
Anvi Ahuja received a text message transcript of her conversation with her roommates during their Lyft ride home on March 11.
The company confirms the incident took place, but has offered varying explanations.
After CBC Toronto contacted Lyft about this story last week, a Lyft representative called Ahuja. She says they told her the company is running a pilot program where audio is recorded from some rides and then the transcript is supposed to be sent to the ride-sharing company for reference if a security issue is reported.
In a statement to CBC, a Lyft spokesperson acknowledged that the ride-sharing company has an in-app audio recording pilot in select U.S. markets with “strict opt-in protocols” but said this incident is not related to that pilot program or any other feature being tested by Lyft.
Hearing a conversation and recording it are two different things. Single party consent means one of the people being recorded must give permission to record … full stop. If there is no consent then a warrant is required.
This is true.
What you don’t understand is that a person does not have to be actively speaking or being directly spoken to in order to be a part of a conversation. Simply being present, with the other participants fully aware of your presence while continuing to converse makes you part of their conversation and thus a party able to consent to it’s recording.
The key there is that the other participants are aware of your presence. You’re not hiding around a corner, listening in unbeknownst to them; the people conversing are entirely aware that you are present and likely listening.
My state takes it a step further. You must be a consistent active participant in the conversation. The driver of a vehicle you are riding in likely would not qualify as he is not there as part of the conversation. There is no way possible that having every conversation in a car automatically recorded would be legal in my state.
Biological memory is a way of recording information. With your logic Im not allowed to speak on telephone with someone recording our conversation (such as companies or government agencies) outside in my yard because their recording might pick up someone unrelated speaking
This is actually a correct assessment for the state I live in
Picking up someone’s conversation by accident like this is 100% inadmissible in court. It is also likely to get whomever is trying to utilize the recording sued.
Filming an interaction is different, that is where the expectation of privacy standard occurs.
Wire tapping went a bit crazy for a while there and needed to be made illegal/inadmissible.