Is it okay for taxi drivers to put their passengers on YouTube?
This may come as a shock, but I must admit that on occasion, I’ve not only drunk alcohol, but I may even have talked nonsense to the taxi driver on the way home.
But what I’ve never anticipated was that my ramblings might be recorded, and uploaded to YouTube for the world to enjoy.
There is, however, a Sydney taxi driver doing precisely that.
Adrian Neylan writes the very entertaining Cablog. It’s been a guilty pleasure for some time now. I strongly recommend it. If you ever wondered about the crap that taxi drivers go through, this showcases it.
He wrote a good piece last week for instance on how the owners of iPhones are the most generous when it comes to paying rewards for the return of their equipment.
He talks about the blog in an interview with social media evangelist David Meerman Scott:
However, one of the other things he occasionally does is record what his passengers have to say. And uploads it to his YouTube channel.
As the most recent (and admittedly very entertaining) example demonstrates, although you can only hear the woman’s voice, anyone who knows her would probably realise who it was. There’s no evidence that she was asked for permission to use the recording – and if she had granted it, I’m not sure she was in a fit state to give informed consent. As Adrian works at night, I suspect he’s asleep right now, but I have emailed him to ask the question.
And that’s where an interesting question of privacy comes in. These people are, after all, using a form of public transport. I seem to remember that some cabs even have a sign warning that passengers may be recorded.
But on the other hand, if this was TV rather than YouTube, different standards would apply. ABC regulations state for instance: “The rights to privacy of individuals should be respected in all ABC content. However, in order to provide information which relates to a person’s performance of public duties or about other matters of public interest, intrusions upon privacy may, in some circumstances, be justified.”
There certainly doesn’t seem to be much in the way of taxi regulations to cover this, although I’ve asked the NSW Government’s Transport & Infrastructure department for their views.
A big part of me thinks that if you behave like a drunken idiot then you deserve a little new media exposure. But where do you draw the line?
Update: Adrian points me towards a debate on this issue that took place on a comment thread on Cablog last month. In that he tells a commenter:
“I acknowledge your privacy concern which relates to the ongoing legal/media debate over balancing privacy rights with freedom of expression – in my case the creation of non-fiction narratives of passenger encounters.
“That these encounters occur in a public vehicle carrying prominent surveillance warnings affords me some latitude, I believe. And equally, the provision of anonymity to my passengers recognises their expectation of privacy. Thus I’m confident that that balance is about right.”
Tim Burrowes
Linkedin
kind of like a cheap production of taxicab confessions – which aired how long ago? 15 years ago?
would assume you’d need consent from the passengers before broadcasting yes?
User ID not verified.
Yikes!
No way I would be happy if a trip in a taxi was posted on YouTube or any other medium. Yes, the only time I tend to use taxi’s is after a night out, usually using a pre-written card with my address and where to find cash just in case.
In Victoria there are clear rules regarding the use of the security footage. They state:
“Privacy
Ensuring the privacy of taxi passengers and drivers is paramount. The purpose of the cameras is to record incidents or assaults in taxis for investigative purposes. Images of everyday passenger trips are not viewed or retained by any person. Stickers are attached to each exterior door of the taxi and on the dashboard to tell passengers there is a camera operating in the taxi.” (source: http://www.taxi.vic.gov.au/DOI.....nt#privacy)
Love Adrian, but yikes.
User ID not verified.
Not knowing the ins and outs of privacy laws, I would guess this is actually illegal. A taxi is not a public place, and therefore any recordings would breach some sort of client confidentiality. If there’s nothing in the taxi’s code of conduct then you can bet there will be as a result of this.
User ID not verified.
Not entirely sure about how the law stands here, either, but I’d say he’s a long way into the nasty, sticky end of it. AFAIK the US doesn’t protect your right to privacy in a car – even your own – Australian law may feel the same, but that’s probably not enough.
The standard warning inside the cab would provide some protection, but there’s nothing approaching implicit consent for broadcast here. As he’s now running ads on his site, he’s effectively creating videos for commercial use, which erodes his options for legal defense even further.
If I was him, I’d be taking them down right now…
User ID not verified.
What about the shocking revelation in the video that bookmakers are all crooks …. who knew ?
User ID not verified.
When entering a cab, you do so in the reasonable knowledge that your activities may be recorded and used as evidence in the event you commit a nefarious or illegal action whilst making use of it. There’s decals and signage to warn you as such.
The implied consent however constituted by the warnings inside and outside the cab which can be visibility seen before entering would not extend to this Drivers use of same or similar equipment for additional purposes beyond what the standard warnings are meant to cover.
It is highly likely based on a quick reading of the NSW Surveillance Devices Act 2007, specifically Part 2, sections 8 and 11 around the use of optical devices without consent, and the communication of private conversations, recordings or activities, that Mr Neylan’s activities are illegal.
Unless the driver has obtained informed consent which can be presented as acceptable evidence in court, such as a written agreement bearing the subjects legal signature, or video depicting the subject in a fit state and ensuring they have a clear understanding about the purpose and potential use of the footage, then the drivers actions are highly illegal.
In short, unless Mr Neylan has all his bases covered here – he’d want to take this footage down quick smart lest he risk a major criminal action and civil lawsuit.
User ID not verified.
Okay, granted this is a grey area and maybe I’m wrong. Am I going to die in a ditch for a handful of recordings? No. So I’ve pulled them whilst awaiting a legal opinion. Thanks for your concern.
User ID not verified.
This sounds like link bait to me!
I think it would be different if you could identify who is in the recordings.
What about the other recordings of people on the road.
If you had come to a conclusion or a suggestion rather than a general “A big part of me thinks that if you behave like a drunken idiot then you deserve a little new media exposure. But where do you draw the line?” I would be more understanding.
But this just sounds to me like you are trying to pick a fight…
User ID not verified.
It’s my understanding that under the survelliance acts that express or implied persmission have to be given for voice transmission recordings – and is the reason why some companys have that warning when you call them that the call may be recorded. As for visual it’s pretty much anything goes bar anything that shows someone in a compromised position,
User ID not verified.
Hi anonymous.
My apologies for not coming to a conclusion. When I have a view I’m generally happy to share it.
But on this occasion, I’m ambivalent. Hence the fact that I said I was ambivalent. But I’m also interested to know what other peoople think. Hence the fact I’ve raised it.
Of course, you’re welcome to offer a conclusion or suggestion yourself…
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
I am so fucked.
User ID not verified.
Agree with Larry… down market Taxi Cab Confessions. Here’s a thought …. Maybe there should be a blog detailing the trials and tribulations of the crap that cab passengers have to endure.
User ID not verified.
Yep, spot on Anothermous. The passenger should have the same rights to film/broadcast as the driver. Got any Andrew O’Keffe or David Hasselhoff footage at all Adrian? They seem to be a winner.
User ID not verified.
damn I wanted to see what all the fuss was about and now they are down…
User ID not verified.
I am not a lawyer, but a TV and video producer who has looked into this. The courts look at whether there is an expectation of privacy. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. One’s home, or in a club or rented premises is considered not public. Personally, I would argue a taxi is NOT a public place. In a taxi, you are a paying customer, and you have certain authority over that space. Security footage that is destoyed or written over after a short period of time is one thing. However, one would expect NOT to be videoed or recorded for public viewing. I would demand proof of signed talent releases for any footage distributed.
Taxicab confessions: My memory of this show was that on average about 400 cab rides were taped for one episode of that series. A lot of drivel was tossed out straight away. The “TV worthy” passengers were asked for written permission at the end of their ride. They have written releases and they filmed the production assistant explaining the shoot, requesting the release and the signing of the release agreements. No question arose over informed consent.
User ID not verified.