SB 184
makes it a Class A misdemeanor to take pictures or video of agricultural land or operations while on someone else’s agricultural property without the land owner’s permission.
This appears to be an effort to prevent undercover videos of confined feeding operations from being taken; based on the notion that, if people actually saw what was going on in some of these places, they might not like it.
This is from the same crowd that disdains “The Jungle” as anarchist propaganda.
Hmm. Is it lawful to blog about the happenings in my neighbors house, as seen through, say, the web cam I have on top of my roof (with night vision no less)?
What if I made that web cam available on the internet?
I would guess that that would not be legal. If it is not, why would this law be needed (since it is pretty much the same privacy violation, and would be illegal under the same law that makes my webcam illegal).
Or am I missing something (besides common decency for having that darn webcam!). ;)
My understanding is that you can put a camera on your property and aim it at an adjacent property, so long as it doesn’t amount to voyeurism — pointing it at the neighbor’s bedroom window or something.
This legislation applies only to a camera that’s on the property of the other person. If the person was on the property without permission, that would be trespassing; but I think the issue has been, for example, an animal rights activist who got a job working at a confined feeding operation — and was therefore on the premises legally — but snuck a camera onto the premises to take a video of the operation.
“but I think the issue has been, for example, an animal rights activist who got a job working at a confined feeding operation — and was therefore on the premises legally — but snuck a camera onto the premises to take a video of the operation.”
Such a person would be a whistleblower in another industry, but a criminal in the ag business?
How can I get me some legislation to benefit just myself and a few of my friends? Oh yes. Money.
Nice sellout, or conflict of interest for the sponsor.
Wouldn’t this be covered under normal trespassing statutes?
I don’t think so. If the person had permission to be on the property but did not have permission to take video; I don’t think they would be committing trespass.
My understanding is that you have to violate the expectation of privacy.
You can have an employee sign a NDA and pursue them if they violate it. That should already cover the employee videos.
As for videotaping or photographing your neighbor, my understanding was that if you went to unconventional measures to take a picture, you’re violating privacy.
Example: Neighbor performs nude yoga, someone takes a video of it.
Legal: when the neighbor does this in view of the picture window you can see from the sidewalk.
Illegal: when the neighbor does this with a rear window open that you can’t see into without night vision or putting up a ladder to see over the 10′ fence.
So, if I can stand in my backyard & use a normal camera to see what a CAFO is doing, I should be able to record it. If I have to use a 50′ tower & 300x zoom to do it, I’m violating their privacy.
And I thought this was just to prevent tourists from taking ‘soul stealing’ pictures of the Amish while they were at work in their fields…