Watching Us Pee

"Those that would give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."
Benjamin Franklin

Rude Security and Security Cameras in the Bathroom 1 Star Rating - Unsatisfactory
Review of Movie theater Virgina

"I drove up from Virginia to get to the Bengies, I was nostalgic for the old days and I was hoping my kids would love the experience and Bengies had everything going for them, but they blew it.
First, I read their house rules several times and they clearly state, "Lift gates & doors CAN NOT BE RAISED higher than the top clearance." However, Security went from vehicle to vehicle demanding that the liftgates be closed. Watching the movie through the rear window or even the front windshield frames the picture making the largest screen in the US (their claim, not mine) seem like I was watching a 40" TV.
Second, there are security cameras in the men's bathroom, I obviously didn't check the women's bathroom, but eww.
Third there are a lot of other little issues that ruin the experience.
Bottom line, the drive in experience wasn't worth the hassle of security, being on camera in the bathroom, or making the drive up from Virginia."

The U.S. Constitution protects privacy in the home, but when it comes to the workplace, there are some gray areas -- such as checking e-mail, voice mail and video surveillance in the bathroom.

According to Scientific American Magazine, Connecticut is the only state in the country that bans video surveillance in restrooms.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/142954/

http://www.workrights.org/issue_electronic/em_videomonitoring.html

California At a Neiman-Marcus Store in Newport Beach , California , Kelly Pendleton, a two-time “employee of the year” discovered a hidden camera in the ceiling of the changing room used by female employees that was being monitored by male colleagues.

Employees of Consolidated Freightways were horrified to find that the company had
installed hidden cameras in its restrooms- some cameras pointing directly at the urinals.
Over a thousand hours of video records were made covering thousands of employees.
"The guys were really shaken, and some of the women went home crying," says Joe
Quilty, the dockworker who discovered the hidden cameras.


Also conflicting info -
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/142954/

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers nine western states, eventually found that the federal law on the uniformity of union-negotiated employment contracts does not trump California's own law making it a crime to place a hidden camera in a bathroom.

Consolidated appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Teamster union's broad collective bargaining agreement provides for some on-the-job video surveillance, and gives employees internal avenues to file grievances without going to court.

"Whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy turns on whether he consented to the intrusion," Consolidated's lawyers wrote.

The operative phrase is "reasonable expectation of privacy." As in, you may be surveilled without a warrant anywhere in which you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In most places, you can not legally be surveilled (without a warrant) in places in which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

At the market, in your car, in the restaurant, chillin at the bar, these are public places and you can be watched. But in your home, in your backyard, and in the restroom, you have a very reasonable expectation of privacy.

Feel free to gently point that out to the store owners by removing or destroying the sign and any cameras (fake or otherwise) in the bathroom.

Thanks Rico I agree completely. I think cameras in bathrooms, regardless of being privately owned or "Public" like owned by the city should never be under surveillance in any restroom. (or very few places as far as I am concerned). And we should have a reasonable amount of privacy, at the very least.

I would like to expect some reasonable amount of privacy, but it seems we don't have that right at this moment in time, unless we take it back. The laws are vague and conflicting.

Who watches the tapes? Who secures the tapes?

Thanks for the comment, I always enjoy your point of view which can sometimes get me thinking in directions I had not thought of prior. I found 100's of lawsuits in similar cases where tapes were abused, and parents sued. High school dressing rooms, restrooms in theaters, etc.
Peace
Tim

Here is the short response / blow off email I received after writing the Sentinel regarding the cameras in the mens bathroom at the 41st ave playhouse. I looked at the ACLU website. They have several legal arguments and cases against such use of cameras as well as extensive articles. I will contact them, but I don't expect to get much help from from past experience.

It seems this is confirmation they exist and despite other legal arguments as Rico pointed out, the Sentnel will ignore this issue. I will write them again, as I believe this is a community concern besides a constitutional issue. I ask others to call, take action. Feel free to contact me. My current health condition may not enable me to participate in a such activities for awhile, but I can try and help in other ways. It is my belief that the general community would be against this. Maybe we can get a different newsprint agency to pick up the story.

From: jgumz [at] santacruzsentinel.com
Here is the response I received from the Capitola police chief Richard Ehle. Jondi Gumz‏
From: Gumz, Jondi (jgumz [at] santacruzsentinel.com)
Sent: Fri 6/06/08 11:40 AM
To: thatoldbookstore [at] hotmail.com
Cc: Copeland, Julie (jcopeland [at] santacruzsentinel.com)

Katz v. United States generally pertains to potential 4th Amendment violations by "Government Agents". i.e. Special Agents, police, Sheriff staff, etc.. Therefore, the ruling does not pertain to private citizens, businesses, private security staff, etc., unless they are acting as agents of the "government".

Any questions? Call me at 706-3253. Jondi Gumz

Tim passed on the following clip at http://www.wnbc.com/video/9788823/index.html?taf=ny

Dear SC ACLU,
I , along with many other patrons were appalled that there are security cameras in the Men's Bathroom at the 41st ave Cinema in Capitola Ca. They do have a sign posted. I wrote the Sentinel, who simply called the Capitola police who told them this was legal. Its my understanding that I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, relevant authority Katz. vs United States (1967) may apply, despite the Capitola Police disputing this. It seems there is both a subjective and objective expectation of privacy in bathrooms. I would be happy to forward you these e-mails as well.

You can read my email exchange between the Sentinel and the police email response at

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/05/18504554.php where I posted the issue, along with the e-mails.

I have also CC this email to the reporter who at least responded to my first e-mail.

I see the National ACLU has a strong stance against such security cameras. I am hoping you might take action in this matter. It is my belief that if the larger community knew, many people from all walks of life would feel this is unconstitutional and simply wrong.

Sincerely,
Tim Rumford

Hola Tim:

I am traveling this week and will respond next week.

-- Pat Reilly
ACLU Chair

Sent from my iPhone

Tim said "They do have a sign posted."

So you are out in public, in a private business on private property, and a sign is posted that says you are being monitored. How can you have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Tapping your phone is one thing. Installing a camera in a private residence is one thing. Recording you in a bathroom with no sign saying it is happening is one thing. Opening your mail is one thing. Going into a crowded movie theater where a sign is posted saying there is a camera is another thing all together.

If you go to a friends house and they say there is a security camera recording what is going on you have to make the decision if you want to go and visit them. If you go into a private business and they tell you they are monitoring you it's your decision whether you want to patronize that establishment or not.

Rules and expectations where set in a specific setting. If you don't want to abide by those rules...........

Or outside by the side of the theater, perhaps! A brilliant and reasonable solution.

Homeless and poor people (and tourists in Santa Cruz) face a similar problem in Santa Cruz where there are no 24-hour bathrooms. Yet they are denounced as dirty wretched people for pissing where they have to.

I suspect "Sam" would be the first to call the cops to denounce someone for "public urination" if it happened near his house.

And that's why it's a "crime" to urinate in public. It's considered a "private" activity.

Of course, for those who welcome the police state, the only privacy is that which those with money can buy, right? And even there, why not let the police in, if you have nothing to hide?

"HUFF" (or Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom)--whose website is http://www.huffsantacruz.org--didn't post the trollish looking "Another Example" comment posted above.

It's not another example at all, but a sophomoric attempt to both dis HUFF and the topic being discussed. I suggest indybay hide (not delete) such posts. See my discussion at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/07/18504977.php .

Ok, Robert. You don't think I, or anyone, should call the police on a person taking a dump in a yard. Since you don't have a problem with finding crap in your yard, give us your address up in Felton and we can instruct people walking through that area that it's an ok place to relieve themselves. You know, considering that there are no toilets along Hwy 9.
It's easy for you to say. You live up in an area that's really not effected by this. Good move on your part. I commend you for that.
You don't own a business in Santa Cruz, so you don't have to worry about cleaning one up with that kind of mess. You don't even have a job so it's not even like your boss would have to instruct you to ever go do something like clean up crap by the dumpster.
It's easy for you to tell people what they should and should not do in this type of a situation because more then likely you will never have to deal with it yourself.

Robert says "Of course, for those who welcome the police state, the only privacy is that which those with money can buy, right? And even there, why not let the police in, if you have nothing to hide?"
It's a little confusing to hear you say such a thing. Don't you have alot of money? Don't you have a private and secure house that you retire to up in Felton every night?

I do feel I should have a reasonable expectation against being filmed in a bathroom, regardless of where it is. There are THOUSANDS of films of people pissing and shitting that were taken by such cameras as these. If you don't believe me, visit the site in the main post. Google "Security Cameras bathrooms" using the image search, where you will find these images, some taken by hidden illegal cameras, an others taken by SECURITY CAMERAS.

In this day and age I feel this is taking security too far. If you want to be filmed in a restroom at biz run by teenagers, than go for it. I did not go in as I said, nor will I patronize such a place again. But the sign can easily be missed. I also suggest you take a look at the thousands of lawsuits from abuse of these cameras. From a police officer in Philadelphia who took over a security camera to ogle womans breasts etc. He was turned in by Airport security as they told him to stop, and he said he could do whatever he wanted. If they are going to post a sign, have it outside, so I can make the choice before I pay to get in.

I have heard from people who lean far right to left who are very against this. The local ACLU has a whole page dedicated to stopping such abuses. My intent was to inform the community so people can decide what actions to take, and if they even want to go there.



Tim Rumford.

Excuse my spelling and grammar. I was writing in a hurry as I am at my limit of how much time I can stare at this screen. I will be on Roberts show on Sunday where you can call if you have issue with me or this post. I meant to say in my last comment that I do feel I have the right to reasonable expectation of privacy, in any bathroom - sign or no sign. But if there is a sign, it should be outside the main building so people can decide before the buy their ticket. My step Dad was appalled as he missed the sign before he used the restroom. I will answer comments as my health allows, if they are reasonable and not just attacking the messenger and really have little interest for the issue at hand.
Tim Rumford

I believe Robert won't answer these questions, because its none of anyones fucking biz. I will say your very wrong about how he lives. If it were true and he spends his entire life fighting for what he believes is right, regardless if you or I agree with everything he does, I would only respect him more. Robert has done more than people know helping people, he just does it humbly and does not use it to promote his causes. And that I can also respect. Talk about what you really know about. Distraction tactics will not work but your comments will bump this story higher up the chain till its featured. Any advertising is good advertising.
Tim Rumford

The expectation of privacy in a bathroom (public or private) is absolute. It's called blackletter law. As for this ridiculous idea that the 1st, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments -- all relevant here -- only apply to government agents is poorly informed. If a crime is taped in this bathroom, who do you think the proprietors are going to call and get involved in the case? Government agents. It is precisely because the chain of custody of such "evidence" cannot be airtight that such footage is useless in court, and can only end up being used by someone who gets his jollies watching people urinate.

When a sign saying you are being watched with a security camera is posted clearly, on private property, you can no longer expect privacy. They are TELLING you that privacy is NOT to be expected. They are being honest and upfront about it. They are not trying to hide the truth from you. They have posted a sign telling you what is going on so... where is the expectation? If they were filming you ad no sign was posted, THEN you would have a case. Not here. The circumstances are very clearly being spelled out, it's up to you to decide if you want to proceed.

I don't really spend my time trying to find videos of people in bathrooms peeing. It's not my thing but hey... if that's what you're into that's cool. I'm not here to judge. I would suspect that such videos are being made without the knowledge of the people doing the peeing. There was probably not a posted sign saying what was going on. I would also suspect that a security camera might be a little less strategically placed then those used in making films to be sold on the internet.

I will not answer comments with a personal attacks in it any longer. They are childish and simply ignorant. I don't attack people personally even when in disagreement. Its a baiting tactic that I for one will not fall prey nor gratify with a response. If you have a comment, no matter how much we disagree I will answer as long as you leave out the high school bully baiting. I may be passionate in my response. But I would never imply the things you have.
Tim Rumford

Where did I attack anyone on a personal level? All I was saying is that it is hard to claim a reasonable right to privacy when the place you are in has signs posted, to notify you, that there are cameras and NOT to expect privacy.

Katz vs The United States is a case about hijacked telephone communication. Most references to it today have to do with intercepting call phone communications. It is further irrelevant in this issue as a sign, once again, is being posted telling the patron of that establishment what is going on. In Katz vs US there was no notification that the telephone booth was being tapped.

When you said, implying the obvious -- "If that is what you are into go for it" after I did research, was both baiting and a personal ignorant attack like that of a child.

Katz is relevant if you read the Judges comments on expectation of privacy, even in public. They did not have security cameras in 1967 like now. But the judge found you do have the expectation of privacy, even in public. Certainly a gray area now only the Supreme court can truly answer this question. Regardless we can demand our right of privacy in restrooms now, while they simply continue to take them. Interpretation of the law differs. Sam we simply disagree, and most people do not want cameras in restrooms anywhere.

Reposted by Tim from answer.com where most comments thought it should be illegal to use cameras in restrooms in California.

Is it illegal to install security cameras in restrooms public or private?

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/546872/date

Below is the fourth answer and I post it as it shows where this is happening in Ca, and being shown live to the public, even to kids. Yes only basins but read it. Do you want this?

Posted on answer.com by Reed Fujii:

Sep. 8--Jerry Precziado was brought up short last weekend while strolling through Sherwood Mall when his son, Christopher, 9, stopped at the security-and-information booth and began laughing.

When Precziado investigated, he saw a monitor in easy public view displaying a closed-circuit camera's view of the wash basins in the men's restroom.

"Here's a guy fixing his crotch, and stepping back and looking at himself, then fixing his pants again," the Stockton man said. "It caught me off-guard. I know they have a lot of deals with cameras, ... but to put it in the bathroom like, whoa ... that's really pushing it."

Yes, the mall does have a camera in both the men's and women's restroom overlooking the wash basins, as well as a sign on the doors to the facilities announcing that fact.

"Restroom exterior and sink area monitored by closed-circuit camera,"...

Peace Tim

The big difference here is that they posted a sign. "Restroom exterior and sink area monitored by closed-circuit camera,"...
They are letting people know what is going on. They are not deceiving you, misleading you, lying to you or most importantly-doing something without your knowledge.

They have informed you.

In Katz there was an expectation to privacy because there were no signs saying that the phone booth was being tapped. People were listening to the calls without the knowledge of the person making the calls. If you are in an enclosed space and speaking on a phone, just like using the mail to deliver a message, you expect that the conversation is between you and the person on the receiving end. In that case there was an expectation to privacy.

In the case of some security cameras.... if they are telling you upfront that you are more then likely going to be captured on a surveillance tape you cannot expect that your actions will remain private. If you go to a comedy show and you are told that by being in the audience you very well may be hit in the face with a cream pie, you can't scream at the organizers when you do get hit in the face with a cream pie.

You may not like it, but hey, that's the way it is.

For those that even care. The Metro at least took the time to ask the management and found according them that even though the sign is now on the wall of Bathroom, it is monitoring those that walk in and out. Had the employees told me that from the get go when I asked, this post would have read differently. I never said there were cameras in the bathroom. I said there may be, or they may even be fake. The Metro quoted me correctly although a bit sarcastically. This I could care little about.

I am still against the surge of more and more surveillance cameras. I still believe I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom. However, I am also human enough to admit I was wrong, in the sense that there are no cameras watching us pee in that theater. Putting the sign on the door of the bathroom made many patrons believe by the wording of the sign they were.

Again, the Katz case, if your read the Judges notes does say we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public.