Originally Posted by blacksc400

Just post a sign 'Smile! You are on camera!'

Originally Posted by jwong77

Lol, I guess its tough being an Uber driver these days. Here's a story of another case where one is attacked by a woman doctor of all things. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/22...er-driver.html

Originally Posted by SW15LS

Any attorney would tell you to post a notice saying that people are being recorded. Why do you think those notices are posted? In any event, a business is different because the person doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public.

The issue comes if you are going to use that video or audio recording as evidence. If it was obtained in an illegal manner...they won't allow it.

What is the issue with posting a notice?



And here are some excerpts from your link:



As I said before, AUDIO recordings are more problematic. The recording in question here is also an AUDIO recording.

More excerpts:







FYI, the case we're discussing the recording was done in Nevada, a two party consent state. This recording was an illegal audio recording because it only had the consent of one party.

So again, what I said is accurate:



You can't necessarily record people in your property without their consent, especially audio recordings.

Originally Posted by chikoo

Delete the audio track. You don't need to hear to see Mr Taco Bell lashing out at the driver

Originally Posted by Aron9000

I still don't see how this video/audio evidence could be thrown out of court. IMO Taco Bell guy was using public transportation. A taxi, the bus, the subway, a train, a commercial air flight, an uber car, IMO all meet the definition of public transportation.

When you use public transportation, it is common knowledge that you will be filmed and that you should expect no rights to your privacy IMO.

Originally Posted by SW15LS

If he can't prove he informed him it's meaningless.