Like many things in our wonderful country, it is a balancing test of rights that varies from state to state. Is it more important to preserve someone's right to privacy, or, to allow a potential domestic violence victim a threat, or a journalist the admission of a corrupt official? You can argue either side of the equation based on the specific issue - its reasonable in some cases, and not others. Its why we have judges.ramster wrote: ↑3 years agoThat is correct. You can have a conversation with somebody and you can record the conversation without letting the other person know you are recording them. Is that fair? Is it legal? In Rhode Island it is.SGreenwell wrote: ↑3 years ago1) It's a public place, so you don't have an expectation of privacy. 2) Beyond that, RI is a one-party state when it comes to recording permission, so the bar to clear for "invasion of privacy" and what not is higher. You can do things like tape phone conversations you're an active party in, as opposed to other states.ramster wrote: ↑3 years ago
Didn’t it used to be illegal to take someone’s picture and video them without their permission?
I don’t go for the videoing and posting either. My guess is the guy was out of hand and wrong, but we don’t see what led up to the unruly behavior on the filming - no full story.
I’m for innocent until proven guilty. I’d like to see the guy take the phone from the By-standing person filming him without his permission and stomp on it.
However, pretty much every state allows you to record things that are openly in public, like the Brickley's dude was. You don't have any expectation of privacy on a public street.