Ottawa Players busted on Uber camera badmouthing special team coach

[TheOnlyBilko]

Lesson of the day...

Unless you are in your own house with someone you totally trust watch what the F you say

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Judging by the number of Uber passenger videos on YouTube, I would say that Uber only started caring when this became a big story.

That's Uber in a nutshell.

Hope the driver got a good price from Postmedia for the video, because he's about to lose his job with Uber.

[keenan87]

What next steps do you even take at this point? That is going to be one weird encounter during practice next time they all meet... especially when they have to practice the special teams.

[Since1984]

This is really nothing at all. You expect players to like all their coaches all the time? They literally don't say anything other players haven't said before.

Talk about beating a dead horse. Ottawa has issues...this is the least of their worries.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by keenan87

What next steps do you even take at this point? That is going to be one weird encounter during practice next time they all meet... especially when they have to practice the special teams.

If Raymond has integrity, he is going to take the video constructively and privately talk to Duchene et al about their criticisms and actually try to change.

But he is an NHL coach, so I doubt that's the case and the Sens' staff will throw a fit.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

I think in AZ you can film anything you want as long as there is one knowing party. The guy will be fired from Uber but it wasn't illegal.

I still don’t think this follows the proper interpretation of the law based on what happened.

Unless the Uber driver was directly involved in the conversation, he wasn’t a party, therefore he required consent which wasn’t achieved.

In Canada, this is made more clear. You absolutely cannot record a conversation that you are not directly involved in (you have to be a subject in the conversation).

All that is aside from the fact that you also cannot just share recordings of these conversations.

Here is a relevant article: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theg...heir-dash-cam/

What’s key to remember here is that just because you are within earshot of a conversation does not mean you are free and clear of criminal liability. You have to be directly involved. You’re welcome to record people on video without sound, but you can only record conversations you are directly involved in.

[Hackey]

1) did not know you needed consent to film an uber ride.

2) did not know Saudi Arabia invested $3.5 billion in Uber.

I think probably 99.9% of people have talked crap about a boss or co-worker at some point in their life though.

[LWcrowfoot]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

If Raymond has integrity, he is going to take the video constructively and privately talk to Duchene et al about their criticisms and actually try to change.

But he is an NHL coach, so I doubt that's the case and the Sens' staff will throw a fit.

That's a fairly bold statement (accusation?).

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I still don’t think this follows the proper interpretation of the law based on what happened.

Unless the Uber driver was directly involved in the conversation, he wasn’t a party, therefore he required consent which wasn’t achieved.

In Canada, this is made more clear. You absolutely cannot record a conversation that you are not directly involved in (you have to be a subject in the conversation).

All that is aside from the fact that you also cannot just share recordings of these conversations.

Here is a relevant article: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theg...heir-dash-cam/

What’s key to remember here is that just because you are within earshot of a conversation does not mean you are free and clear of criminal liability. You have to be directly involved. You’re welcome to record people on video without sound, but you can only record conversations you are directly involved in.

You can film yourself and anyone else in AZ at any time. Even without them knowing as long as you yourself are in the video. The law protects against voyeurism (Hidden camera on an unknowing party) Same goes for audio recordings

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by jg13

No wonder Colorado is flourishing without Duchene.

Guy seems like a complete ######bag.

Please. Some of the team were having what was supposed to be a private conversation. If you don't think the Flames have guys having the same conversations on nights out, you're sorely mistaken.

Agree or disagree with what was said but you have to be sickened by the logic behind what someone is trying achieve by releasing that clip. Legal or not it is just plain wrong on a moral level to bring that to light in a very public manner. Hopefully Uber terminates this driver - I wouldn't trust this guy to drive my family members around.

[GioforPM]

I'm sure the players will grovel and apologize, maybe blame alcohol, and it will blow over. Maybe it'll give rise to a heart to heart between the players and coaches - who knows.

[Toonage]

Hope Uber doesn't release the video of my wife and I in Calgary this past weekend.

Sitting in the back, staring blankly into space. Not saying a word.

I don't need that kind of publicity.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Please. Some of the team were having what was supposed to be a private conversation. If you don't think the Flames have guys having the same conversations on nights out, you're sorely mistaken.

Obviously that's what they thought, and the driver was unprofessional, but cameras aside, they should realize that there's another person sitting right there in the car, not some robot driving the car. And they are at least semi-famous, depending on the driver's interest in hockey. They should be a little smarter.

If I overhear a barstool conversation between Monahan and Gaudreau about how they hate Peters and think he's stupid, and that they don't listen to him, I probably don't publish it. But I'd have a hard time not sharing it with friends, and then it just takes off.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by LWcrowfoot

That's a fairly bold statement (accusation?).

Consider the source.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I still don’t think this follows the proper interpretation of the law based on what happened.

Unless the Uber driver was directly involved in the conversation, he wasn’t a party, therefore he required consent which wasn’t achieved.

In Canada, this is made more clear. You absolutely cannot record a conversation that you are not directly involved in (you have to be a subject in the conversation).

All that is aside from the fact that you also cannot just share recordings of these conversations.

Here is a relevant article: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theg...heir-dash-cam/

What’s key to remember here is that just because you are within earshot of a conversation does not mean you are free and clear of criminal liability. You have to be directly involved. You’re welcome to record people on video without sound, but you can only record conversations you are directly involved in.

Forgetting about PIPEDA argument brought up, which I would agree is less clear. The criminal code of Canada has a definition of private communication.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ction-183.html

private communication means any oral communication, or any telecommunication, that is made by an originator who is in Canada or is intended by the originator to be received by a person who is in Canada and that is made under circumstances in which it is reasonable for the originator to expect that it will not be intercepted by any person other than the person intended by the originator to receive it, and includes any radio-based telephone communication that is treated electronically or otherwise for the purpose of preventing intelligible reception by any person other than the person intended by the originator to receive it; (communication privée)

How at all would any of those Senators believe that it was reasonable for the driver not to hear it? That's the requirement for it to fall under the Criminal Code.

I would say there's even a difference between two backseat passengers talking quietly in an Uber/Taxi/Limo/anything than it would be for you to be screaming into the ears of the driver so your friend in the front can hear. But again, the case would come down to whether it was reasonable for the driver to hear them.

At the Saddledome, if we were sitting next to each other and quietly having a discussion and the guy behind us was eavesdropping with his camera to record, that could certainly fall under the criminal code.

If you got up to grab nachos though in the middle of our conversation and your half way through the aisle and I continued screaming our conversation so everyone could hear around us and someone picked up "and that's where I think I got crabs" on their phone and it went viral, tough luck for me.

With PIPEDA, I guess we'd actually need to see some case law on it. Commercial activity and the fact that this wasn't an Uber sanctioned camera or that the organization itself would ever receive/use the video (not sure if they support the use or not) would likely come into play. Could even be a difference if the driver used the camera only during Uber-sanctioned car sharing activities or had it on everytime he was in his car.

But I'm not a lawyer.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Obviously that's what they thought, and the driver was unprofessional, but cameras aside, they should realize that there's another person sitting right there in the car, not some robot driving the car. And they are at least semi-famous, depending on the driver's interest in hockey. They should be a little smarter.

If I overhear a barstool conversation between Monahan and Gaudreau about how they hate Peters and think he's stupid, and that they don't listen to him, I probably don't publish it. But I'd have a hard time not sharing it with friends, and then it just takes off.

There's a huge difference between telling some friends a story, with no evidence whatsoever, compared to skewering half a dozen players, their coach and organization for personal gain by releasing video that shouldn't have been stored in the first place. The driver is a complete loser to go to those lengths and I would be concerned what else an individual like this is doing with his recordings. Your barstool story would go no further than a laugh over a few drinks compared to the whole world with the latter.

If humanity is now at a level where the onus is on everyone to assume strangers are going to act like scum and exploit whatever they can from anything and everyone, it is really sad.

[Itse]

Btw, is it legal to make any recording like that public?

Because in Finland there's a difference between what you can record and what you can publish. (Which makes sense to me.)

As in, you can record most situations you're in, but releasing your recordings or even showing it to someone else can still breach privacy.

(Sorry of that was already discussed and I just missed it.)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

There's a huge difference between telling some friends a story, with no evidence whatsoever, compared to skewering half a dozen players, their coach and organization for personal gain by releasing video that shouldn't have been stored in the first place. The driver is a complete loser to go to those lengths and I would be concerned what else an individual like this is doing with his recordings. Your barstool story would go no further than a laugh over a few drinks compared to the whole world with the latter.

If humanity is now at a level where the onus is on everyone to assume strangers are going to act like scum and exploit whatever they can from anything and everyone, it is really sad.

I would think all video is stored for some time in case of an incident.

I don't disagree that the driver was not acting properly. I still think the players were foolish, though.

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I would think all video is stored for some time in case of an incident.

I don't disagree that the driver was not acting properly. I still think the players were foolish, though.

What the players said really wasn't even that bad. Their PP and PK does suck.



That uber driver is scum.

[DoubleK]

Not sure why this is even news.

Players aren't allowed to vent about their team?