Follow Us Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Cybersecurity Technology Media and Telecom

Expectation of Privacy In Surveillance Cameras

Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that audio interceptions did not violate the rights of the defendant under the Wiretap Act, and so were admissible. The Supreme Court drew a proper and logical conclusion from the facts and the law and, hopefully, brought us closer to a reasonable look at the issue, but we still have a long way to go.


Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In last month’s article, “Can You Hear Me Now — Privacy of Discussions,” I examined case law involving cell site location Information (CSLI) to discuss why that case law is inconsistent and deeply problematic when it finds a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” as the concept is understood, in CSLI when interpreting the Fourth Amendment under the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In summary, I discussed how cases finding a “privacy” violation when law enforcement gathers, without a warrant, CSLI of a target’s cellphone over a period of time to determine where the target was over that period, make little sense because the CSLI captured is intercepted from public atmospheres in which the target had no reasonable expectation of privacy to track the target’s public movements, in which the target had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

To continue reading,
become a free ALM digital reader

Benefits include:

*May exclude premium content

Read These Next