Anonymous wrote:Many cameras like Nanny cams, security cams, etc. do not come with audio due to privacy laws.
And in CA, FL, PA, etc. a person can get in a lot of trouble if their nanny reports that cameras audio taped her.
The homeowners could face wiretapping charges which could send them to jail and pay a hefty fine.

If audio will be turned on, then the camera owners should talk to a lawyer first.
And consent must be given in writing or recorded because when if later on a Nanny claims she never knew her voice was being recorded?
A court will rule in her favor if the camera owners have zero proof that the other party consented.

Just because a woman goes to a guy’s apartment alone and even kisses him, does not mean if the guy raped her she gave consent.
Just because a nanny knew that cameras were recording her voice and she continued to work there does not mean she gave consent.
The law is very strict regarding consent.

Also audio is in its own category from video.
The stakes are higher so OP did not consent unless she provided a recording of her consent or signed a form giving consent.
Any family who doesn’t do either of these things prior to installing audio is just stupid.

You should do some research before you incorrectly make claims. Wiretapping is completely different, and most of what you said is garbage and false.

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.”

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!

Many cameras like Nanny cams, security cams, etc. do not come with audio due to privacy laws.
And in CA, FL, PA, etc. a person can get in a lot of trouble if their nanny reports that cameras audio taped her.
The homeowners could face wiretapping charges which could send them to jail and pay a hefty fine.

If audio will be turned on, then the camera owners should talk to a lawyer first.
And consent must be given in writing or recorded because when if later on a Nanny claims she never knew her voice was being recorded?
A court will rule in her favor if the camera owners have zero proof that the other party consented.

Just because a woman goes to a guy’s apartment alone and even kisses him, does not mean if the guy raped her she gave consent.
Just because a nanny knew that cameras were recording her voice and she continued to work there does not mean she gave consent.
The law is very strict regarding consent.

Also audio is in its own category from video.
The stakes are higher so OP did not consent unless she provided a recording of her consent or signed a form giving consent.
Any family who doesn’t do either of these things prior to installing audio is just stupid.

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.

Your tone here makes you sound like a complete nut job with something to hide. Nobody is recording audio to analyze your singing voice. Most cameras on market are motion/ sound activated.

Anonymous wrote:By accepting the job and continuing to work for them when you knew there was audio recording, you gave implied consent. Technically, you gave consent.

+1 Attorney here and this is correct. Glad it worked out for you, OP, but there is no way of knowing if your employers actually did mute the transmission or not.

Do they still make cameras without audio?

By accepting the job and continuing to work for them when you knew there was audio recording, you gave implied consent. Technically, you gave consent.

Once you were aware of the audio and continued to work there, you consented. They don't need anything in writing. So no one is going to be in any "hot water."

That said, if you don't like it quit. Maybe I'm naive, but we've never used cameras. I wouldn't like the idea of being recorded all day either.

FWIW though, as a parent, I think your self-consciousness, while understandable, is probably unwarranted. I can almost promise you that your bosses don't care about your singing voice. We just hear horror stories and get paranoid. As long as you're not abusing the kids, we're not judging or giving any thought to how silly you look playing with them. We do it too, and know we look like idiots.

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.

Do any cameras NOT have audio now? I think your employers are correct that disclosing cameras includes assuming there is audio.

Either move yourself into the real world and 21st century or resign.

A condition of the job is that you consent to audio. There's no version of this where the discussions end with no audio and you keeping the job.

If you really, really don't want audio recording, don't make a silly statement about your singing voice, or argue about a technicality. Explain your real reason for not wanting it.

Then, when they say take it or leave it, be comfortable with whatever you decide.

Pretty much all cameras have audio now. I would have assumed that there was sound when I was told about the cameras.

Legally they disclosed the cameras and assumed you understood that there was audio.

How would you even know for sure if they agreed to remove the audio, but didn't?

I have a perhaps (!) complicated question that may be too difficult to answer, but I will try anyway.

Started with a new family.
They have exposed cameras in the home & pointed them out to me.
They never mentioned there was audio until I ASKED them and they then confirmed that yes, audio would be on along with the video.

I told this family that the audio made me feel very uncomfortable because I love love to sing to kids & with audio, I would never sing since my voice was awful.
He just laughed + told me he couldn’t sing either.
Some may remember my previous post.

Fast forward to today.
I have been doing some research about cameras with audio and have learned that in 13 states (mine included CA), that it is illegal to record an individual on audio unless a.)They disclose it to the party being recorded which they did (only after I specifically asked) and b.)The person being recorded would have to formerly “consent” to being recorded (which I dispute.)

The family and I discussed this today because I requested they remove the audio and they wouldn’t because they claim they disclosed it which I concur.
The area we do not agree on is whether or not I fully consented.

They say I did, but I feel like I never did.
I never verbalized that I did nor did I sign a consent form.

Both sides want this position to work out, but we are struggling a lot right now with all of this.

Who is right here legally speaking?
TIA for reading this (sorry!) long essay.