One thing video surveillance professionals consistently warn about is the risks of using audio surveillance. This is because laws about recording people's speech (i.e., wiretapping) tend to be significantly tighter than recording what they do.
This week, social media went nuts when some American singer (or something) declared she hated Americans after licking a donut.
What's interesting for surveillance professionals is that the donut store evidently had a surveillance camera with audio being recorded. Here's the clip:
California, where this incident occurred is a two-party consent state, meaning the 'recorded' needs to know and agree to have their audio recorded. On the other hand, there sometimes is an exception if it is a public place, but it is unclear to us how this is applied / decided.
So, what do you think, audio surveillance is fair game in stores and restaurants?
I have not seen any pushback or criticism on the mainstream press or from the singer's people about the legality of the recording.