Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed legislation that mandates the notification of motorists when photos are gathered by their in-vehicle cameras.
Under Senate Bill 296, introduced by Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, selling of these images or visual materials to third parties or for advertising purposes will be prohibited.
“It seems like everywhere we go these days we’re being recorded or surveilled with no idea how the images are being used,” Dodd said in a statement Monday. “This breakdown of our privacy is now happening inside our own cars. With Gov. Newsom’s signing of this new law, we can prevent the unwanted taking of video by in-vehicle cameras and give consumers more control over their personal information.”
In light of this growing concern for privacy, many drivers are turning to dash cameras as a proactive measure to protect themselves on the road. Dash cameras not only provide essential evidence in case of accidents but also serve as an extra layer of security for drivers.
Experts recommend reviewing various options to find the best fit for individual needs, and resources like https://dashcamdiscount.com/ offer comprehensive reviews and insights into the top-rated models on the market. By investing in a quality dash camera, motorists can enhance their driving experience while ensuring their personal privacy is respected, aligning with the intent of the newly signed legislation.
Dodd’s office emphasized there is increasing concern that despite the safety benefits that in-vehicle cameras provide, they can also be exploited by data brokers and other third parties who would sell such images without regard to consumer privacy.
Under the newly signed law, “consumers will not have to take action to prevent their in-vehicle video recordings from being collected without their permission or knowledge,” Dodd’s office said.
The state senator clarified the legislation will not prevent the use of cameras for traffic safety.
IF I ever had a vehicle with an “in-vehicle camera”
it would be functional up until I was done with my stick of gum.
@Original G – I agree with that but if the cameras are used for “traffic safety” as part of ensuring that the human in the driver’s seat is fully engaged with the task of driving, as they should be, then the car may well shut itself down and notify authorities, and your insurance company. It seems automated traffic citations are now legal and so you may well also receive a citation on the spot (including a digital service “convenience” fee!) for disengaged operation of a motor vehicle.
That’ll never be a problem, newest vehicle we own is a 1996 Impala SS.
Full size American car with large V8.
Big Brother is not my copilot.
Yes but you can add a dash cam to any vehicle with a cigarette lighter and a windshield.
If this is some X-rated hipster slang I don’t understand it
….so this negates the law / rule that what happens on public roadways is public information? Another of Newscums “look at me” projects avoiding the big issues he won’t deal with avoiding accountability and responsibility?
So right about Newsom!
Like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic…he’s focused on the stupidest things…not the crushing issues of crime, drug use, bums, in the 48th worst school system in the nation!
@Domo
The way I interpreted it, it doesn’t negate the law you mentioned. What it does, it seems to me, is that this is a law similar to wiretapping laws. Remember when Geico (I believe) was installing a device on their customers’ cars to analyze drivers’ behavior? California banned Geico from installing those devices here in the state. This law is along those lines. It doesn’t seem to limit recording personal conversations or video inside a private citizen’s vehicle since, I believe, that would fall under eavesdropping laws already established.
Reasonable and rational. You must be new. 😝
“In-vehicle camera” needs to be defined a bit more. Another sign of a dense politician not knowing what they’re making a law about. I’ve had a car cam since 2015 when driving up to the store I almost hit a bicyclist who came out of a blind corner which BTW had a stop sign he ignored. So when I returned home I immediately ordered a camera.
.
There is already a law that says you need to let people know riding in the car that the audio is being recorded so I put up a sticker for that. I think for some bizarre reason Dodd wants a law controlling what people do with their camera (often on their phone) footage in any way commercially. Just like any camera footage in public there are laws regarding liability for such footage. In some cases waivers must be signed. But most of those phone camera videos just show the face of the owner who is publicly recording a comment or opinion to post online. I suppose now they will also need to tick a check mark that is a footage of yourself and that you own.
.
Dodd seems to be intent on making life too complicated to live.
@ Captain
I know what you mean, but this seems to be more like a wiretapping law. “…. Penal Code § 631 PC makes it illegal to use recording devices to intercept or eavesdrop on confidential communications without the consent of all parties involved. This includes phone calls, text messages, and other forms of electronic communication…”
This seems to be geared toward companies like Garmin, or even Tesla, which has consumers download information through their camera app. Once those camera companies, or similar, will have consumers’ information, they will be “limited” to how they use it. I still believe that Goversnot Newscum should be handling crime and drug issues, but perhaps he will declare to want to resolve that and will use it as his running platform.
Newsom is grandstanding and wants to be known as “governor do things” whether those things are good for us or not. 🙄
Other drivers may lie after they cause an accident. A recording of their actions would shut them up. But this law would prevent one from submitting the recording for possible inclusion to youtube videos like “Idiot drivers of the month. I disagree because they are in public.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed legislation that mandates the notification of motorists when photos are gathered by their in-vehicle cameras. GET THAT CAMERA OUT OF MY CAR !!! What is going on?
Either the law was written to be completely confusing or the Claycord article isn’t a good summary of the law.
l1. Does this have to do with camera’s in ride sharing vehicles and requiring notice if audio is being recorded and not allowing a ride sharing driver to use the audio/video for their own purpose (e.g., TikTok)?
2. Does this law have to do with the camera I have mounted in my own vehicle for traffic safety? Does this mean I can’t use my own video for my personal purposes? If my camera records a crash i which I am not involved does it mean I can’t post it online?
3. Is this law only for cars manufactured with camera’s recording traffic and in-cabin activity and audio?
4. All of the above?
I think the law should only apply to ride sharing drivers not being allowed to upload video/audio of their customers.
Perhaps this has something to do with an unfortunate incident in the official state government limousine.
A year or two ago, I was watching a local YouTuber who posts videos of dumb drivers. Glad our ever knowing Goversnot Newscum has not decided that it is best for us to not have that type of channel content.
It would be nice if we had a say on all these bills being signed into law. Why if these laws are passed to….” give consumers more control over their personal information.” consumers don’t get to vote yea or nay? Seems it’s not about protecting consumers, but it’s more about politicians having control.
With all the stupid dumbsh#t drivers out there pulling idiotic f%khead stunts all the time, any recordings made in my vehicle would earn an R rating at a minimum for all the mother&*ing obscene language coming out of my mouth.