Does that apply to being recorded in a public location (and would the driver's cab count)?

Also, for all we know there could be a sign in the black car that says, "Smile you're on candid camera!".

Inside of a private car with the windows up isn't public.

I don't know whether California is a two-party consent state, and the specifics of what that requires are different state to state anyway.

> Inside of a private car with the windows up isn't public.

If it was your car and someone got in and recorded you, then I'd say that's more clear cut. But if you get into someone else's car do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Since you're technically hiring that person and their car to provide you a service, they have to disclose up-front if you're being recorded. In addition, just because you were being recorded doesn't mean the driver has the right to publicize the video. That requires additional consent unless it's a matter of public record.

Dunno about the USA but for the few EU countries I known the law of, the answer is yes, there is an expectation of privacy.

If you go to someone's house, do you expect to be recorded there? I'm not a lawyer, in any case :-).

I think the answer is maybe. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

No, I think Travis has enough bad PR now. He doesn't need to punch down and sue a driver he's already bankrupted

I'm not sure about that. This isn't a 'scandal' in the way Uber's treatment of its female engineers is; it's just a driver leaking what was thought to be a private conversation, albeit one that isn't particularly flattering for Travis.

As a passenger, I think I'd be happy to have an example made of a driver who recorded and then published video and audio of a private conversation without consent. I've said and done plenty of things in the back of an Uber/Lyft/taxi that I wouldn't want the whole world to see.

Having issues with Uber's practices is fine, and talking about them publicly is fine—but a driver who makes and leaks illegal recordings is not someone I want to ride with. Throw the book at him, IMO, and frame it as standing up for riders' privacy.

Your reading of Travis strikes me as wildly optimistic.

Granted, this is all still speculation, but what would such a lawsuit do to the Uber brand? They'd basically be telling all of their drivers in two-party consent states not to not use dashcams because of the liability, which seems tenuous given some of the terrible videos of riders abusing drivers we've seen. Legal liability over safety seems like a hard sacrifice for people who make so little as it is.

I bet he was kicked off Uber because of this exchange

If he was, I'm sure there would have been a big hue and cry about it already.

I'm ... fare-ly ... certain certain this law does not apply to recordings for security purposes in a place of business; the vehicle being the place of business of the Uber driver.

EDIT: Er, scratch that. Didn't realize there was audio attached. I think audio might be the incriminating factor in the two party consent thing. I mostly just wanted to make a bad pun.

There are separate laws for video and for audio. Recording video is allowed in most places; audio recording is much more restricted, and as far as I know making this recording was not legal if it was in California. However, litigating it would cause so much more PR damage that it will almost certainly won't be.

You agree to surveillance when you use these cars.

Intent matters - as soon as the recording is used (and published!) for a clearly different purpose, the legal situation is quite different. For example disclaimer similar to classic "your call may be recorded for quality control purposes" may allow the recording (depending on the location, etc) but generally will still land you in hot water if the company publishes that for an unrelated reason.

No you don't. Show me where that's in the terms?

Some states make exceptions for recordings that take place for business security purposes. California does not.

However, CA does make an exception for recording "in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded."

You could certainly make an argument that this douchebag might reasonably expect audio to be recorded in his company's driver's cars. Not so sure you could make that argument for the other passengers.

Interestingly, Bloomberg could be sued (or prosecuted; $5000 fine) for distributing the recording if it indeed falls under CA's wiretapping laws.