Legal Implications of Video Surveillance on Transit Systems (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 25-28
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 25... ...
25 District of Columbia.334 In other states, there appears to be no provision for a private right of action for a data-breach.335 In some states, no action is permitted against government agencies.336 At least four states exempt government agencies from "enforcement proceedings."337 Some states' statutes provide for the imposition of a civil penalty for a violation of a state statute protecting personal information and/or a violation of a requirement that an agency give notice of a breach of the security of personal information.338 Although the scope of some of the foregoing statutes is sufficiently broad to cover video surveillance data collected by a government agency, no cases were located for this digest in which a court has applied a state statute on the collection of data on individuals to a video surveillance system or its data.
|
From page 26... ...
26 Because federal law pre-empts the field of wiretaps, any state law regulating the interception of wire communications must provide safeguards at least as stringent as those in the federal statute.346 The proscription of the interception of oral communication by using a device transmitting radio communications applies both to interstate and intrastate communications without the necessity of showing an effect on interstate commerce.347 In Christie v. Borough of Folcroft,348 employees of the police department alleged that they were subjected to audio and video surveillance in their workplace in violation, inter alia, of the Federal Wiretap Act and the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act.349 In denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the Wiretap Act claims, the court held that both the federal and state Acts allow claims by people whose communications have been intercepted but that "[e]
|
From page 27... ...
27 authorization.363 Section 2701(a) applies to anyone, except as provided in subsection (c)
|
From page 28... ...
28 On one hand, when a statute allows one party to consent to the recording or intercepting of a communication that is otherwise lawful to record or intercept, the courts have agreed that consent by one party to the communication is sufficient.379 On the other hand, a non-party's recording or interception of a communication without the consent of any party to the communication has been held to violate the law.380 New Jersey's statute "mirror[s] the federal Wiretapping Act and fail[s]
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.