Are TriMet bus microphones an invasion of privacy?
PORTLAND, Ore. – It’s clear enough from the cameras mounted on TriMet buses that somebody is watching, but on a new model of bus somebody could also be listening.
TriMet added 55 new buses to their fleet last fall. Unlike old buses, all of the new models are equipped with a series of microphones that constantly record audio.
There are signs posted that state both video and audio is being recorded, but the American Civil Liberties Union is crying foul.
“People shouldn’t have to give up their privacy right as a condition of getting on public transit,” said David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the ACLU.
Fidanque said the ACLU hasn’t yet filed any formal challenge to the microphones, but they do have a lawyer investigating possible action.
The ACLU claims the microphones violate an Oregon law governing what can be recorded. Specifically, the law states that a recording can’t be made unless “all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.”
The buses have a sign posted warning that audio and video is being recorded.
“We don’t think posting of the sign is going to cut it,” Fidanque said. “Why should (people) be subjected to these recordings when they’re not doing anything wrong?”
TriMet disagrees with the ACLU interpretation of the law.
“We feel we met that test,” said TriMet spokeswoman Mary Fetsch. “It’s a public space and we’ve given notice” in the form of the signs.
Fetsch said nobody at TriMet will be actively monitoring the recordings. Rather, they will use the audio when there is a specific incident.
“We’re not interested in someone’s conversation between their friends or siblings,” Fetsch said.
She said when an incident happens on a bus TriMet officials review the video. If an incident happens on a new bus, they will now also be able to review the audio.
“It will give us a fuller picture of what’s happening,” Fetsch said.
Several passengers we spoke to on Wednesday said they were not happy about being recorded.
“I guess it’s a little unnerving,” said a passenger named Rachel. “Why would you need that?”
“Personally I think it’s an invasion of privacy,” said a passenger named Noah. “It’s not a very big sign. I don’t think many people are aware of it.”
A woman named Jan said she didn’t notice the signs, but she did think recording audio was fine.
“I think it’s important to have stuff like that to record crimes that are committed,” Jan said. “I’ve been on buses where they didn’t have it and it’s a ‘he said, she said’ and it can get all tangled.”
Are you okay with TriMet recording audio on buses with only a sign warning? Leave your comments below.
Bus riders should be required to be pre-approved by Tri-Met
by undergoing an extensive background check at the potential rider's expense.
Anyone ever convicted of a crime is banned from riding.
Anyone having ever used the Mental Health system are banned.
Those with too many complaints against Tri-Met or the police are banned.
Remember: It's ALL good if it's in the name of security.
It's for our children's safety...
Perhaps they should use something with "smell-o-vision"?
Who in the world cares? You walk into any store and you are recorded with cameras. The only time those videos are viewed is if there is a crime committed. Now, some woman on the bus with a small baby is booted off the bus at midnight for what ever reason, the recording can either justify the rider or the driver....
I can believe ACLU is debating this issue, what a waste of time and MONEYÂ
The only people that would be concerned are criminals. Hard to claim"he started it" when you are recorded hastling someone.
Don't ride Trimet. Problem solved.
âPeople shouldnât have to give up their privacy right as a condition of getting on public transit,â said David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the ACLU"
You'd think that somebody from the ACLU would know that you have no general expectation of privacy in a public area. This is why photographers are allowed to shoot nearly anything they want in a public area without permission, because it's public and there's no expectation of privacy if you're in public.
First, ask yourself, is Tri-Met public or private transportaion? Yes, it's public, and therefore not restricted to videos nor microphones. If it was a private service, then use of those devices would be an invasion of privacy. How simple was that?
There should be a 360 degree camera every square meter throughout the entire USA. And it goes without saying that they should have automatic weapons safely sealed within the camera and the ILWU should have the jobs sitting in a control room viewing what is going on everywhere and have the authority to kill via remote control not unlike a video game, if they see suspicious activity.Â
so just have the bus drivers tell each person as they show their ticket that they are being recorded. if someone says they were not told, pull the video and audio. problem solved. did we really need a story on that?
Oh no! Now people won't be able to make complete asses out of themselves without being recorded!
It's public transportation, not private transportation. Â Get over it. Â It's my tax money I want the criminals who ride the bus/rail nailed when they do crime.
So the best bet is to get a car and not use public transportation.. I won't use it knowing this.. Once they have no riders they will do whatever they are told... But, the problem is most people who use our buses and max will never grow beyond public transportation..
Seems like the driver should have a switch that they can turn on when the need arises to record because of a disturbance or emergency situation. just recording 24/7 does seem like an invasion of privacy for both the driver and passengers. It stops freedom of speech by the driver as anything the driver says or doesn't say could lead to the firing of the driver.
Public transit is a public place, and there should be no expectation of privacy in a public place, therefore, audio recording of this nature is legal in Oregon. I'm not a lawyer, but I read the statute, and it looks pretty clear. Â Also, I have no problem with it. Before they had cameras on Trimet buses it was very dangerous to ride on some lines. Â It was quite scary. The adding of audio would help them ascertain who the troublemakers are, and deal with them. There are other civil liberties that we should be more concerned with, like the government accessing information on our computers without a warrant. Â That concerns me! Â Cameras with audio on our buses make me feel safer!
I'm not surprised that every aspect of our public lives are under scrutiny. At work I'm on camera, where I shop same thing. Phones are monitored, the web is monitored. Satellites track our movements. Without all this how will the drones know where to kill us?
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.
Why doesn't this site work anymore on my iPad?
@The Resistance The site doesn't work on the iPad anymore because it's part of the socialist plot, the folks at Apple are capitalist pigs.
@JTesla @The Resistance --- Just as I suspected. Thanks!
Will they hear the people crushing each other when the brakes hit hard at every stop
I can understand the value of video and recorded accounts of incidents on the MAX. When I ride the MAX I am usually reading my kindle, listening to my music, looking out the window and maybe making casual conversation with other riders. BUT......if one of those riders was getting rude and threatening and verbally abusing people I think a recording would serve well in those instances. I think THOSE riders have been put on notice that they need to be civil or else.
Any security camera(s) and microphone(s) on-board public transportation is perfectly legal in spite of the ACLU that would love to tie this up in court. Let us not forget that we are dealing with the federal government on this issue. Good luck to all you Left Wing Liberal Loons, because all Tri-Met has to say is that your conversation(s) may be recorded while you are on a public conveyance...
A lot of you are missing the point. This information can be picked up and used by Harolds computer on Persons of Interest and could save someones life. John could leap out at any moment and save one of you because of the information gathered. You could be a STAR!!
@Brownknight Or they'll just stage something justifying their use when too many people express their outrage. Though the libtards in this city will most likely clap and cheer as their rights go down the toilet.
I may be incorrect but I thought that a "right" was something that an individual "exercised" and not something that was "granted"... It seems to me that the right to privacy would be easy to protect if someone who had something to hide did just that, hide it! Â I get real tired of people complaining about they're rights that they actually give away by simply not exercising them in the way they were intended to be. No matter how hard our founding fathers fought for our rights I have never been told that I get them at no cost (personal or otherwise). America really isn't that much different than it was 2-3 hundred years ago, what is different is how many people actually believe they don't have to do anything for they're freedoms. It took "Blood, Sweat and Tears to achieve what we have as a nation, and it doesn't take anything to lose what was achieved. maybe that's what's happening? Maybe we should do more and "expect" less.. anyway, if you feel your rights are being infringed upon, do something about it! to leave it up to someone else means they are not "your rights" just a thought!Â
@Madgreak Today's "Blood, Sweat and Tears" is a lawsuit. A lot less mess to clean up.
@JTesla @Madgreak Today's "Blood, Sweat and Tears" is in other countries so we here at home don't have to look at the mess. I don't know how many lawyers our military is sending over to these "occupations" though.  I could be wrong.
Maybe they should put drones on the buses. Lol. What does it really matter anyway?
@Mr. Carbon Footprint Sup dawg, I heard you liked drones, so I put a drone in your drone and put that on a bus!
@JTesla@Mr. Carbon FootprintOh man. Pwned again.
After riding MAX for close to 8 years I can safely say that there is not a single conversation worth taping.
My feeling is that these cameras and microphones on a PUBLIC bus is no more an invasion of privacy than someone taking out their cell phone and having a loud conversation for everyone to hear. If I am in a PUBLIC setting I have no expectation that what I say or do is private. My actions and words are only private if I'm in a place like my home or car - except unless my actions are against the law (i.e. selling or manufacturing drugs or harming someone, etc.). If you're afraid that someone of authority will see/hear something you shouldn't be doing/saying when in PUBLIC then there is a simple and harmless solution --- DON'T DO IT OR SAY IT. That also goes for those phone calls. If you don't want comments from those around you, don't take the call in public. Wait until you're somewhere at least semi private.
@Open Book Okay, Open Book. Let me give you a scenario that another posted said was far-fetched. Through various manipulations, etc., whoever is President at the time manages to annul the Constitution. President then declares Christianity illegal. Does that mean I shouldn't be able to exercise my right to the free practice of my religion by reading my Bible (quietly, to myself) on the bus?
@theprodigal What a wild imagination you have! talk about a stretch.Microphones on busses to Presidents doing away with the First Amendment.Keeping in mind that the Christian belief-system has been dominating countries,and political systems since like 300 BCE.I suppose now that President Obama is in office,there's no end to the paranoia and Christian persecution complex by the fundamentalist Christians just because the election didn't go your way.
@noneofyourbizzness @theprodigal Wild imagination? I remind you, noneofyourbizzness, that rights and freedoms are generally not lost in one fell swoop but in small, almost unnoticeable increments.
As for the Christian belief system dominating countries and political systems "since like 300 BCE", allow me to remind you that Christianity did not exist until the first century CE.
So we Christians have a persecution complex simply because the election didn't go our way and Obama was re-elected. Granted, Christians in America have an easy road compared to Christians in other countries when it comes to being persecuted. Let's face it - the worst than can be done to us without violating the law is being ridiculed. Chrisitans in other countries have been jailed and worse because of their faith. Let's also look back at history to see things like Nero persecuting Christians. Oh, no. Chrisitans haven't been persecuted. We just like to think we are.
Trimet gives Peeping Tom a bad name.  But this is the least of your worries with the war on the American dream of.private home and transportation.  Please note you won't be seated next to the elite  planners on the bus or enrolled in Obamacare such are designed forthe controlled masses.
They should put microphones and cameras in peoples homes....because if you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to hide, right?
Because, all the Civil Rights only provide protection for Criminals and do nothing for law abiding citizens, right?Â
People should be under constant surveillance regardless of where they go because that makes everyone safer; like when the TSA sticks their finger up an old lady's butt at the Airport and everybody take their shoes off everybody is safer.Â
Civil Rights are the enemy of safety because they just limit the ability of the government and law enforcement that is always 100% perfect and righteous and good to do the perfect job that they do catching evil doers.  Anyone that questions the magnificent job of Americas Heroes is a criminal and likely a terrorist too.Â
@Icarus AHHH that is comming to a home near you!!! The cable companies are getting ready to put cameras in thoes little black boxes that you rent from comcast etc. so they can target commercials towards you specifically. IE-The camera sees you snuggling on the couch, and they may run a commercial for condoms, arguing on your couch? You may see a commercial for counceling... etc. They claim it's to better target commercials to the "viewing audiance". Think about it next time you are watching tv. Interesting that now you can't recieve a TV signal without the black box, HUH????
@Icarus http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Pay particular attention to 'strawman', 'slippery slope' and 'anecdotal'.Â
Regroup, and try again.Â
@MarkKpicÂ
Don't have to the point is made. Look at all the encumbrances for law abiding citizens that are due to the TSA and extrapolate. My goal wasn't a serious indictment but more of a think about it scenario....
@Icarus @MarkKpic Assuming that 'the point' is that you prefer to rely on strawman debate points rather than substanitive discussion of issues... well... Yes. Checkpoint met. Carry on.Â
I didn't realize there was any expectation of privacy in a public place other than restrooms...
@kramr Â
Yeah, the real problem is for law enforcement; all their conversations will be captured also...and they won't have the ability to make that evidence disappear because it will belong to Trimet And, the media will have the ability to grab that information by a "freedom of information" request if anyone complains of misbehavior by cops or Trimet. Just maintaining that information will lead to a whole new can of worms of providing access and storing it and cataloging it. The overhead will be generous.Â
The whole notion of recording on the train doesn't bother me in the slightest except that it is just another level of civilian monitoring and the public is being conditioned into accepting increasing levels of social monitoring.  The law is based on equality and balance is the major factor....if cops can use that information for investigation and prosecution then the public will have the ability to use that same information for investigation and defense.
Â
Â
@Icarus Trimet will no doubt make any evidence of a crime disappear at law enforcements request. Much like the BART shooting where they claimed the camera "malfunctioned."Â
@Icarus @kramrh I trust equal access and infallibility from distortion corruption and infallability to the same degree I trust voting machines.
With the amount of crime happening on Trimet I think it's absolutely fine that they are recording video & audio. In public there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. The ACLU needs to sit down and shut up.
@Daniel Trimet would disagree with your crime assessment, so why do they need they need to record people again?
The real danger comes when things like this are mindlessly accepted, then the system can push more & more intrusive measures on the serfs. In the UK the court can order your house be wired with cameras & microphones if there is any question of a persons parenting skills - and most of the Brits mindless accept it. We basically going down the same road.
@axpmanAnd in the UK they don't have a Constitution like ours nor a Bill of Rights. Â It's a whole different environment and cannot be compared to the U.S.
@pdxtvguy Ironic that everything that seems to happen there winds up being implemented here.Â
@axpman"The real danger comes when things like this are mindlessly accepted" Â Â Like Obamacare?
Are you frappin' kidding me?Â
The ACLU hasn't gotten any press recently in Portland, so they're probably hungry for some 'noble' cause to champion.
âPeople shouldnât have to give up their privacy right as a condition of getting on public transit,â said David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the ACLU.Â
The standard, Mr Fidanque, in case you've forgotten your law courses, is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. It has been upheld again and again that while in public peoples 'reasonable expectations of privacy' are significanly lower than in their own personal homes, vehicles or places of work. Since it has already been upheld that video is legal, it's not by any means a stretch to say that audio would be as well. So long as there are conspicuous posting of signs that notify users of the transit system. Of course, you are undoubtedly fully aware of this and are instead simply angling for some ACLU award for your work.
Lord save us from attorneys with a cause.... please?
'Fidanque said the ACLU hasnât yet filed any formal challenge to the microphones, but they do have a lawyer investigating possible action.'
Translation, "we have to look for any precident cases to see if we have a snowballs chance in hades with this completely innaine proposed legal challenge. Meanwhile, I get off on seeing my name in print. That's F-i-d-a-n-q-u-e."
Bus comments are ok, but surveillance cameras on public streets are not?
@jpk BTW... an interesting read;
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03748.pdf
@jpkYou might be able to find a different link for it. It's a link to a PDF that is the Highlights of GAO-03-748, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives. Â
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE;
Information on Law Enforcementâs Use ofÂ
Closed-Circuit Television to MonitorÂ
Selected Federal Property inÂ
Washington, D.C.
(actually, FIOS may have done you a bigger favor than you realize. It is, after all, a government report. )
Probably is, but I couldn't open it! Thank you Frontier FiOS!
@jpkNot sure where you're getting your statement from, but according to the Supreme Court the standard is from a SCOTUS case Oliver v. United States., 466 U.S. 170, 179 (1984);
"[O]pen fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields."
The term 'open fields' has since been expanded to include public spaces such as downtown sidewalks, public parks and public common areas (such as Pioneer Courthouse Square).Â
The problem with some surveillance systems (insofar as where they run afowl of the 4th amendment, where the judiciary is concerned) is when they are either mounted on private property without warrant, or when they can see (under normal use) inside of a private residence or 'visually protected property' without the concent of the landowner.Â