Ottawa Players busted on Uber camera badmouthing special team coach

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Uh, no you do not need consent to record someone. Where do you get that idea?

A doctor, and lawyer, would be special circumstances of which most people are aware they do not have the right to secretly record.

I would, however, 100% be allowed to put my phone in my pocket and have it secretly record a conversation between myself and you. Canada is a one-party jurisdiction.

Public sector legislation bans recording folks without consent in Canada unless you are in public. If there is some sort of exclusion then usually its locked down around disclosing the recording.

I also thought if you're a business like uber under pipeda you need to disclose you're recording... They can't secretly record people.

I thought the only scenario where you can record someone without consent is if you're some random private citizen on your own time talking to another person actively engaged in the convo.

[Erick Estrada]

At the end of the day it sounds like Raymond went to the same special teams school as Dave Cameron. I'm sure you could have recorded some Flames last season saying the same thing about Cameron.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You just need consent of one of the parties involved in the communication. If you're sitting less than a foot away from someone, you can easily make the case that your part of the conversation. The Senators would need to argue that it was a private conversation that was not intended to be heard by the Uber driver. That would not hold up.

Furthermore, even in a two-party jurisdiction, an obvious camera (assuming it wasn't tampered with to appear off when it was on) would possibly hold up.

Are there not reasonable expectations for the use of the camera, and of the resulting footage, for example for only purposes related to security?

This could potentially be a civil case where the usage of the information in a way it was not reasonably expected to be used could damage a livelihood, no?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

At the end of the day it sounds like Raymond went to the same special teams school as Dave Cameron. I'm sure you could have recorded some Flames last season saying the same thing about Cameron.

To me it points to a crappy coach coaching crappy players being driven by a crappy Uber driver
Just crappy for everyone involved

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

To me it points to a crappy coach coaching crappy players being driven by a crappy Uber driver
Just crappy for everyone involved

Don’t forget the crappy anonymous mudslinging reporter!

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

From Uber:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1059646890201964544

https://twitter.com/user/status/1059647675287490560

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

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Public sector legislation bans recording folks without consent in Canada unless you are in public.

If there is no party involved. If there is a party involved, you can record.

The Uber driver would be considered a party and would therefore legally be allowed to record. Although against Uber's own policy that would result in the loss of his job.

[The Boy Wonder]

Greasy move by the driver. But a mans gotta eat I suppose.

And that is such a common thing, groups everywhere at every office or job no matter how great will talk shop and bitch about bosses

[Oling_Roachinen]

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)

In Canada, for it to be against the law, the Senators would have to argue that it was reasonable that the Uber driver did not hear it (and that they were not aware of the video camera most likely). In that case, as long as the Uber driver didn't identify himself as deaf, they would be laughed out of the court.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Are there not reasonable expectations for the use of the camera, and of the resulting footage, for example for only purposes related to security?

It doesn't matter. One-party consent. All that's needed for it to be legal was the Uber driver to be aware of his own camera. In Arizona and Canada it's the same.

In other two-party states, it's murkier. Absolutely.

Civil suit against Uber or the driver for going against policy? Maybe. I really have no idea how that would go and I think that's a can of worm that's probably going to open up by each state at one point or another. I'm talking the legality of it though.

[chummer]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Greasy move by the driver. But a mans gotta eat I suppose.

And that is such a common thing, groups everywhere at every office or job no matter how great will talk shop and bitch about bosses

What?

[Ashasx]

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.

Don't some Uber and Lift drivers literally livestream on twitch?

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If there is no party involved. If there is a party involved, you can record.

The Uber driver would be considered a party and would therefore legally be allowed to record. Although against Uber's own policy that would result in the loss of his job.

Sorry to hijack the hockey thread...

I thought what you are talking about... one party consent only applies to private citizens in their own time. A public body or company or its agents can't record folks without consent even if they are in the conversation. Doesn't pipeda ban a company like uber from recording its customers unless they inform them? Like when you call a company and they have to play the "your conversation may be recorded..." Message?

Unless the argument here is that the uber driver isn't covered by the law because they are some kind of indepedent contractor?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Don't some Uber and Lift drivers literally livestream on twitch?

Yeah, and there's a million youtube videos of random Uber driver. They do get banned from the streaming sites and Uber/Lyft when there's media attention or complaints, like this situation though.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Deegee

I don't talk bad about my boss. I have an excellent working relationship with them and hope that my team feels the same way about me (though I am okay if they don't).



There are enough resources out there where people can be effective bosses and not be the target of being made fun of on a regular basis.

That’s great, but most people talk about other people. What’s said isn’t necessarily even true, but we all vent about our superiors- be it bosses, parents etc.

I don’t really know what you mean by the last paragraph. It doesn’t have anything to do with resources; some bosses/coaches/managers just aren’t very good at aspects of their job and it’s human nature to bitch about it. In fact, I’d argue that it’s actually unifying in a way to vent about your superiors.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Sorry to hijack the hockey thread...

I thought what you are talking about... one party consent only applies to private citizens in their own time. A public body or company or its agents can't record folks without consent even if they are in the conversation. Doesn't pipeda ban a company like uber from recording its customers unless they inform them? Like when you call a company and they have to play the "your conversation may be recorded..." Message?

Unless the argument here is that the uber driver isn't covered by the law because they are some kind of indepedent contractor?

Uber driving being an independent contractor, it being his own private vehicle, and it being his own private recording device. This isn't Uber's information.

There's nothing about it being a private citizen on your "own time" either. You can record workplace conversations (again, legally, not necessarily to the betterment of your career...)

http://blg.com/en/News-And-Publicati...blication_4539

As employment lawyers, we are often asked whether it is legal to record a conversation at work, specifically the ones related to concerns over workplace performance or where there is a dispute in the workplace and the employee wants to have an exact record of what was actually said. The second question we are then asked is whether you can make the recording without the other person knowing. The simple answer to the question of making a recording of a workplace conversation is "Yes", but only if the following apply:

you are a participant in the conversation and consent to the conversation being recorded;
you are an employee, not acting as a member of management; and
you were intended to receive the communication.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Sorry to hijack the hockey thread...

I thought what you are talking about... one party consent only applies to private citizens in their own time. A public body or company or its agents can't record folks without consent even if they are in the conversation. Doesn't pipeda ban a company like uber from recording its customers unless they inform them? Like when you call a company and they have to play the "your conversation may be recorded..." Message?

Unless the argument here is that the uber driver isn't covered by the law because they are some kind of indepedent contractor?

If you do a search on Uber policies and laws in the U.S you will see that Uber drivers have the legal right to record their passengers with or without their consent.

[Looch City]

The exact same scenario:

Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi captured on video describing Uber CEO as a 'dick'

Unaware he was being broadcast on Periscope, Nenshi and the driver (who also works for Uber) began discussing Uber’s “illegal” entry into the Calgary market last year, the subsequent enforcement against its drivers, and the city passing new livery bylaws legalizing ridesharing — rules Uber slammed as too onerous to operate in the city.

I don't remember this discussions when this occurred but were we as outraged of the secret video recording?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

I don't remember this discussions when this occurred but were we as outraged of the secret video recording?

Yes, we had a nice lengthy discussion on two-party states which Massachusetts was one.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Uber driving being an independent contractor, it being his own private vehicle, and it being his own private recording device. This isn't Uber's information.

There's nothing about it being a private citizen on your "own time" either. You can record workplace conversations (again, legally, not necessarily to the betterment of your career...)

http://blg.com/en/News-And-Publicati...blication_4539

So the distinction is that its his phone as such he has custody and it is not uber's data? Seems like a pretty wishy washy line to me. If my employer wanted to record someome who comes into our business but we're not allowed under privacy law it would be legal if I do it as long as I use my own private phone. Even if I am on paid company time acting as their agent? Wouldn't the company still be liable if I did it while working for then?
Anyway not my sector/world but that seems pretty sketchy to me.

That said uber is a whole different ball of wax with the independent contractor thing.