Please Tell Me Who Is Right Here.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP Here:
Since it is illegal to record audio in 13 states, then many camera manufacturers manufacture cameras w/out the audio in them.

And since recording audio is illegal w/out my consent, the family has no option but to follow the law in order to stay out of hot water.

They also had the option of firing me if I refused to be recorded via audio, but they chose to keep me around because they feel comfortable enough w/me now.

I am glad that I thoroughly researched this and that I stood up to these people who were trying to get away w/doing something unlawful.

Because knowledge is power!!!!

Nannies should always always be up to date on laws that may protect them.
They should educate themselves and keep up to date on everything.

Hypothetically even had I said on camera that I was going to abuse or neglect my charge, nothing in voice recording would even be admissible in a court of law.

But what is your point? Are you going to take them to court? Because you'd actually have to prove damages to win something. There is zero upside here to you being a nutcase about this. Also, "recording" is not the same as having the cameras on and listening, as long as they aren't recording. They can listen to you all the live-long day if they aren't keeping a record, and they can fire you for any reason. The only thing they wouldn't have is a record to present to the court or to the unemployment office to contest your filing.

[Anonymous]

I would NEVER trust these UNTRUSTWORTHY people.
Good luck, OP!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone can provide a link saying consent can be defined merely by working around cameras, knowing they have audio and continuing to work that would be awesome!

Here you go:
https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf

Page 2, under the heading "Consent"

What constitutes “consent” is also an issue of contention when you are considering recording a conversation. In some states, “consent” is given if the parties to the call are clearly notified that the conversation will be recorded, and they engage in the conversation anyway. Their consent is implied. For example, we have all experienced calling a customer service department only to hear a recorded voice warning, “ This call may be recorded for quality assurance or training purposes.”

This is specific to a taped PHONE conversation between two parties.
What I wanted to see is how consent is proved for an individual to who is not part of a PHONE conversation.
Someone working in a private residence where one party at another location can hear what another party in the home is saying to anyone else or even themselves.

No one really seems to get it.
And no ......wiretapping laws can apply to audio recordings.

It can also all be inadmissible in court.
Say you do not have tangible proof that a nanny consented to being audiotaped.
No signed consent form or audio recording.
And what if this nanny has the baby/child out of view of the camera, but can be heard hitting the child, screaming incessantly at the child and/or saying abusive things like “You little _______!” You deserve to die!
Etc.

Unless the family can show evidence that the nanny had allowed her consent then they are out of luck because that audio will be tossed out as evidence.
That is why anyone who records audio in their home needs to have the parties CONSENT.

Right now this only applies to just 13 states in our country.
All others can record audio w/out any laws preventing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would NEVER trust these UNTRUSTWORTHY people.
Good luck, OP!!

+1000x

[Anonymous]

WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE WHEN YOU'RE STILL WORKING FOR THEM?????????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE WHEN YOU'RE STILL WORKING FOR THEM?????????

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE WHEN YOU'RE STILL WORKING FOR THEM?????????

Huh?

Yes....
Huh????????!!

You PP have serious anger issues
You are starting to sound crazier than this nanny family.

[Anonymous]

You consented by NOT saying "I don't consent to the audio." You said it made you uncomfortable because of singing, they said no, and you said .... nothing after that. Thus, you consented. I'm sorry.

But if it helps at all, they're not judging your singing, or showing it to others or laughing at you for it or anything. They're just making sure you aren't cursing out their kids while smiling, aren't saying it's a good thing they're pretty because they sure are stupid, or bashing the parents to the kids.

I am in CA, have cameras and am not spending all day watching the nanny. I don't have time. I watched more when my babies were very young, and check in when they're sick, or they're going through a difficult phase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You consented by NOT saying "I don't consent to the audio." You said it made you uncomfortable because of singing, they said no, and you said .... nothing after that. Thus, you consented. I'm sorry.

But if it helps at all, they're not judging your singing, or showing it to others or laughing at you for it or anything. They're just making sure you aren't cursing out their kids while smiling, aren't saying it's a good thing they're pretty because they sure are stupid, or bashing the parents to the kids.

I am in CA, have cameras and am not spending all day watching the nanny. I don't have time. I watched more when my babies were very young, and check in when they're sick, or they're going through a difficult phase.

People are responding that consent was given, but they are only speaking of their opinion .
Again, if a woman goes up to a guy’s room, kisses him and even has foreplay, if he then rapes her when she didn’t want it....
Does this mean she gave consent by only saying no at the very last second??

If a Nanny is told that she is being recorded via audio and if she continues after that, then how can consent be proven in a court of law??
It cannot because legally she never gave consent to be recorded.

If anyone can prove me wrong, I will eat crow.
And buy you a steak for dinner too.

[Anonymous]

consent to be recorded is not the same as consent to engage in a sex act. that is a ridiculous claim.
she can tell them she no longer consents to being audio taped at work, but that doesn't make what has already taken place illegal. she would never be able to prove that she had not consented to this, because the fact is that they did tell her about the cameras, she made an assumption about the audio that turned out to be wrong, and then she made a silly off handed comment about her singing voice. she has not been damaged in any way by her employers.
i'm not a fan of cameras, but to say her employers could be sued for this is to seriously underestimate the burden of proof here.
if she sends her employer some sort of letter saying she doesn't consent to being filmed/recorded they're going to fire her. which is fine-she can also just walk away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:consent to be recorded is not the same as consent to engage in a sex act. that is a ridiculous claim.
she can tell them she no longer consents to being audio taped at work, but that doesn't make what has already taken place illegal. she would never be able to prove that she had not consented to this, because the fact is that they did tell her about the cameras, she made an assumption about the audio that turned out to be wrong, and then she made a silly off handed comment about her singing voice. she has not been damaged in any way by her employers.
i'm not a fan of cameras, but to say her employers could be sued for this is to seriously underestimate the burden of proof here.
if she sends her employer some sort of letter saying she doesn't consent to being filmed/recorded they're going to fire her. which is fine-she can also just walk away.

+1. Perfect summary of the situation.

OP, you seem committed to being angry and insulted. So quit. That would appear to be your only option here. Are you planning to call the police? Go ahead. IF (big if) they get involved, they will tell your employers the law, and tell them to get signed consent from you. You won't sign, and they will fire you. No one will be arrested, fined, or even get a stern talking-to. They will not be forced to turn off the audio and continue to employ you.

This is one of those laws that's only relevant in very particular circumstances, like trying to use the recording as evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:consent to be recorded is not the same as consent to engage in a sex act. that is a ridiculous claim.
she can tell them she no longer consents to being audio taped at work, but that doesn't make what has already taken place illegal. she would never be able to prove that she had not consented to this, because the fact is that they did tell her about the cameras, she made an assumption about the audio that turned out to be wrong, and then she made a silly off handed comment about her singing voice. she has not been damaged in any way by her employers.
i'm not a fan of cameras, but to say her employers could be sued for this is to seriously underestimate the burden of proof here.
if she sends her employer some sort of letter saying she doesn't consent to being filmed/recorded they're going to fire her. which is fine-she can also just walk away.

+1. Perfect summary of the situation.

OP, you seem committed to being angry and insulted. So quit. That would appear to be your only option here. Are you planning to call the police? Go ahead. IF (big if) they get involved, they will tell your employers the law, and tell them to get signed consent from you. You won't sign, and they will fire you. No one will be arrested, fined, or even get a stern talking-to. They will not be forced to turn off the audio and continue to employ you.

This is one of those laws that's only relevant in very particular circumstances, like trying to use the recording as evidence.

This (both above posters).

You might as well quit OP. You won't win this and even if you did it's a short-sighted victory as this working relationship is already fully poisoned.

If I were your employer I'd already be looking for your replacement. Clearly this isn't a good fit.

[Anonymous]

I think any family that actually wants audio recordings of their nanny has trust issues too strong to trust anyone.
I am a driving instructor in California and my bosses installed cameras on the dashboard about six months ago.
Well I act a whole lot different when instructing my students.
I also turn the camera around when there is no student in my car.
Why should my bosses be able to watch me when I am alone?
They only need to see me when I am with a student to make certain no impropriety is occurring.
But to have access to me all during my shift?
That is just sick.
Voyeurism is sick. Everyone deserves privacy.
It should be a right,
Not only a privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think any family that actually wants audio recordings of their nanny has trust issues too strong to trust anyone.
I am a driving instructor in California and my bosses installed cameras on the dashboard about six months ago.
Well I act a whole lot different when instructing my students.
I also turn the camera around when there is no student in my car.
Why should my bosses be able to watch me when I am alone?
They only need to see me when I am with a student to make certain no impropriety is occurring.
But to have access to me all during my shift?
That is just sick.
Voyeurism is sick. Everyone deserves privacy.
It should be a right,
Not only a privilege.

+1

Unfortunately these days it is not a right.
In the olden days, most parents complained about the babysitter raiding the refrigerator.

Now with cameras, they get to watch their nanny do everything else.
Just creepy.

[Anonymous]

This is ridiculous! Just find a family who has no interest in cameras.