
Can You Legally Record Audio or Video on Your Security Camera? I Focus on These Rules
This is something I've thought about a lot as I've tested security cameras in all parts of my home for years. Owners must know when and where it's legal to record everything from their front yard and streets to friends, babysitters, and pet sitters. Breaking privacy laws could lead to fines, lawsuits and other huge headaches. I've gathered all the details below so you'll understand what to avoid and what's safe to do. Let's start with a key rule, the expectation of privacy.
Read more: Want Better Home Security? Never Put Your Cameras in These Spots
Public vs. private surveillance
Common sense about privacy can keep you out of a lot of trouble.
Lorex/Amazon
First, let's talk about the most important rule when recording video (anywhere). The standard that the courts have widely adopted is called the "reasonable expectation of privacy" and it's very, very important.
You can generally set up security cams in your home as you please, but you can't interfere with someone's reasonable expectation of privacy. In practice, that comes down to how people tend to use rooms. Surveilling living rooms, entryways, kitchens or dining rooms is fine because those rooms are more "public" spots used by everyone in the house and are generally highly visible.
However, setting up a cam to record video in a bedroom, bathroom or changing room is usually considered illegal without explicit consent, even in your own home. People expect a higher level of privacy in these areas and the law agrees. Minor/dependent limitations also apply: Parents can monitor their baby's bedroom, for example. But when in doubt, apply the rule of a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you do need cams in more private areas, consider disabling them when guests are over.
The expectation of privacy is even more important if neighbors are pointing security cameras at you. No one can film you without your permission on private property, like filming your backyard or through your windows.
One vs. two-party consent
Audio privacy laws are particularly strict if you want to save camera audio conversations.
Luis Alvarez via Getty
Now let's turn to the big rule in audio recording, which is your local consent laws. Because of the Federal Wiretap Act and similar legislation, states are divided into one-party and two-party/all-party consent laws. In a one-party consent state such as Colorado, Tennessee or Texas, one side of the conversation needs to give consent to be recorded, which makes it legal to record telephone calls you are part of and (in theory) two-way audio conversations you have through a camera.
In two-party consent states such as California, Florida or Michigan, both or all sides need to give their consent to have their conservation recorded. It is never legal to record a conversation where no one is giving consent.
This consent is usually a verbal affirmation at the beginning of a call or a separate acknowledgement that consent was given. Justia has a guide breaking down the rules by individual state where you can find more information.
Four tips to record video in your home
Video recording is legal in your home as long as you respect privacy.
Lorex/Amazon
Let's break down video capture, a primary goal of installing a security camera in your home. Today's cameras use motion detection and frequently have video storage options to automatically save video clips -- both to local storage and the cloud -- when they see people. These steps will help you know what to do.
Step 1: Review your state laws
Laws about surveillance can vary by state, so if you want to stay safe you need to start by looking up the laws in your own state. State websites, local law firms and others will often summarize these laws for you to save time. Here's a breakdown of California's law as an example.
States may have specific laws about hiding security cameras, how you can use security camera recordings in court and if you need permits for specific kinds of security cameras. A few minutes of reading up can give you important parameters to follow. For example, the California law mentioned above has specific language about "intent to invade privacy" and intent to view "the body or undergarments" that can help clarify what's not allowed.
Step 2: Follow the 'reasonable expectation of privacy'
Don't record video in any area where people expect privacy. Keep recordings focused on common areas such as entryways, porches and primary rooms.
Step 3: (For renters) Let the owner know about cameras
Property owners broadly have the right to install security cameras on their private property, including inside homes that they own. They don't usually need a permit, either. If you aren't the property owner, the law gets less comfortable with you recording video.
When renting, contact the owner of the property if you want to install a security camera and notify them, getting written permission if possible. Sometimes leases will have more specific information on who is in charge of security systems, while other leases have more leeway. Tenants usually have the right to install their own security cameras to watch over the personal space they're legally renting. But letting the owner know can precent future issues.
Step 4: Notify guests about cameras, including short-term rentals
If you have guests over, hire a nanny or have a friend staying over for a couple of weeks, let them know that you have security cameras, no matter where they are. It's polite and it avoids any chance you could be accused of hiding cameras and recording without consent.
Important note: Other regulations can apply in certain circumstances. The best example is Airbnb, which in March 2024 banned all use of indoor security cameras (video doorbells, etc. should still be fine) by Airbnb hosts. Previously, Airbnb had allowed the use of indoor cams in some regions as long as guests were notified. The rules changed -- which is why it's important to look up the details if you aren't sure about the law.
Four tips to record audio in your home
Apps often offer ways to record or disable audio.
Lorex/Amazon
Audio recording is a different beast than video recording: It has more legal implications and is traditionally used often as evidence in courts. When audio is involved, people have extra protections. Our rules will help you stay within the bounds of the law.
Step 1: Review your state laws (but even closer this time)
Find out if your state is a one-party or two-party consent state and check if it has any specific language about recording audio, wiretapping and similar situations.
Step 2: Exercise caution if your cam can record audio
Camera apps often allow you to record audio -- if you have a Ring Protect plan, for example, you can usually record and download video and audio from a Ring doorbell, then keep it or share it with others. Eufy also gives you the option to record audio when a video is recorded.
But recording audio without consent risks crossing an audio law red line, even if it's automatic. It's often up to users to go into apps and disable audio functions for legal safety. Even if a home cam theoretically saved incriminating audio, it might not be usable in court and could lead to countersuits or other problems.
Step 3: Get or give consent for any recording
If you really want to record audio, find a device that can do it and make sure people are giving consent to be recorded. We suggest getting permission from both sides of a conversation even in one-party consent states, just to stay safe and polite. That's how phone interviews are conducted, for example.
Step 4: Avoid false pretenses when recording someone
Federal law prohibits recording conversations with criminal or malicious intent and many state laws confirm that with similar wording. Avoid any accidental appearance of blackmail or similar scheming. That includes any effort to try to trick someone into having a certain conversation or saying certain words, or pretending to be someone you aren't while talking to another person.
What about outdoor security cameras?
Privacy laws apply to outdoor cams too, with a couple of extra considerations.
Arlo/Amazon
Outdoor security cameras are still on your property (or they should be) and they typically fall under the same laws as indoor cameras. As long as security cameras generally face public spots -- the front of your home, sidewalks and streets -- they fall well within the law. If you're the owner, you have the right to film your backyard and other parts of your property, too.
However, you cannot film areas where other people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That means you cannot film a neighbor's backyard or angle a camera so that it can record through their windows. Many cameras have privacy zones and other tricks you can use to avoid even the appearance of spying on someone.
The same rules for audio also apply to outdoor cameras. You'll need one-party or two-party consent to record conversations. Security companies skip that hassle by only allowing live audio. That's why you can talk through your video doorbell, for instance, but can't set it up to record conversations.
Finally, if you are renting, make sure to stop by our guide on the best security devices and tips if you're living with roommates, which can create another set of headaches when people start encroaching on your personal space.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Piece of plane found in North Carolina driveway may belong to Delta flight
Police in North Carolina are investigating after a Raleigh resident discovered a part of a plane in their driveway. The FAA told CBS News that the debris was from a Delta aircraft that landed Tuesday night at Raleigh-Durham International Airport.

CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
Unpacking Bryan Kohberger's guilty plea deal to avoid death penalty in Idaho student killings
CrimeFacebookTweetLink Follow Bryan Kohberger appeared expressionless as a judge asked if he murdered four Idaho college students in their off-campus home, answering 'yes' to each name called out in the courtroom Wednesday. At a change-of-plea hearing before state district Judge Steven Hippler in Boise, Idaho, the courtroom was packed with family members of the victims as Kohberger, a 30-year-old former PhD student of criminology, admitted his guilt to all five counts in the indictment and entered a plea deal that removes the possibility of the death penalty. Kohberger had been charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary in Latah County, Idaho, in the fatal stabbings Ethan Chapin, 20; Kaylee Goncalves, 21; Xana Kernodle, 20; and Madison Mogen, 21, in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022, in their Moscow, Idaho, home. CNN trial correspondent Jean Casarez has been closely following the investigation and was in the courtroom when Kohberger admitted guilt. Here she breaks down some of the key pieces of the case and the plea deal: Some of the answers have been edited for length and clarity. Q: Prosecutors submitted a variety of evidence they say ties Kohberger to the crimes, including DNA found on a knife sheath on a bed close to Mogen. Why did prosecutors decide to strike a plea deal now, despite the strong evidence including DNA, surveillance and cell phone data? A: I think that's one of the biggest unanswered questions. We don't know. Here's what we do know: Prosecutors hold the key to whether a trial goes forward or whether there is a plea deal. This was a very solid case, and the defense had lost so much – they were not going to be able to present an alibi because they couldn't establish there was anyone who saw him in another location when the killings took place. I was talking to a prosecutor who told me this case is the case of a lifetime for a prosecutor. But this trial was going to cost a lot of money. This is Moscow's case. Latah County would have to pay for it all. The case had been moved to Boise to ensure a fair trial for Kohberger. So, one can only surmise that judicial economy or saving money went into this, right? Q: Kohberger's defense attorneys have said he has autism in part of their push to get the death penalty off the table. What do you think tipped the scales toward avoiding the death penalty for both the defense and prosecution? A: This was the only bargaining tool. They bargained away the death penalty when he agreed to serve life in prison without any possibility of parole. In 2003, serial killer Gary Ridgway bargained away the death penalty but there were conditions. He was going to tell authorities where all of the other victims were that he killed and he did that. Here, there are no conditions. Q: Without a trial, there's no public adjudication of any motive. How does that impact any closure in this case for the families and the public? A: One of the issues with several of the families is that this was just too easy, that he was going to be able to sign the dotted line, done deal, then he can live his life forever. They wanted answers. They wanted to know if anybody else knew about it, where the murder weapon came from, why he went to that particular house, why he went up to the third floor. And those questions conceivably will never be answered. If you look at what the father of Kaylee Goncalves said, he's very upset because he believes no one is caring about these four young lives that were taken so soon right as they were beginning their adulthood. The family of Madison Mogen spoke outside of court, and they said through their attorney that this could be closure, they can move on and it's alright. But the father of Xana Kernodle is saying it's not alright, that they're not going to ever really know the truth. Q: Was Kohberger's family in the courtroom Wednesday? A: Kohberger's family was not in the courtroom. This is interesting, though, because during the final pre-trial hearings, the defense told the judge the Kohberger family was going to be here for this trial and be there for their son because he leans on them for support. We can definitely believe, though, that they watched today. They issued a statement asking everyone to please respect their privacy. But this has to be traumatic for them. When Kohberger was first arrested in Pennsylvania, I was in the courtroom and sat right behind his family. His mother was crying uncontrollably. His two sisters crying in the same fashion. Kohberger was expressionless and when he walked in and locked eyes with his father while the rest of his family was crying, I just saw that these are real people, and they have to be stunned with what their son is being charged with. Q: What were the reactions and emotions you could sense in the room when he admitted guilt – was there any tension between the families and victim advocates, the judge along with the defense and prosecution? A: It was very tense in the courtroom. Very tense but very silent. The media had been told to not show any emotion in the courtroom, and I wonder if the families were told that because they were so intense, they were staring at Kohberger very strongly. They were staring at the judge very strongly, but I did not see actual emotion coming out of them except from Kaylee Goncalves' aunt. That's who I heard it was. She had a Kleenex, she was crying so hard, but it was silent – she wasn't making any audible sounds at all. When the prosecutor said, 'We have still never found the knife, the murder weapon,' I looked at Kohberger. I wanted to see if there was a reaction because there's one person that knows where that murder weapon is, and it's him. There was no reaction to that. He didn't move a muscle in his face. Kohberger never once looked at the courtroom, looked at the people in the courtroom. He was in a stoic gaze with no emotion whatsoever. It was just like he did this every day. When he had to take the oath that he would tell the truth, Kohberger jumped up and put his hand up. The judge said, 'You don't have to stand up. I know you're trying to be respectful to the court, but you don't have to stand up.' Q: After Kohberger is sentenced, what happens to the gag order that has kept the parties from speaking publicly? A: After sentencing, the case is over, so the judge has to lift that gag order because they have a First Amendment right to speak. The gag order was to preserve a fair trial before a jury for Kohberger. Both sides are not requesting a pre-sentencing report, which is normally done before sentencing. Sentencing is going to take place at this point on July 23. The prosecutor said they want to give all family members a chance to speak. Q: Another interesting aspect of the hearing today seemed to be the emotional response of prosecutor Bill Thompson who choked up a couple of times, but most notably as he was finishing his recitation of the facts and said the names of the four victims. What did you make of that and was there any significance behind that moment to you, as you covered this case from the beginning? A: I've never seen him get emotional in any pretrial hearing. This is the first time, but a prosecutor has empathy for victims because although they represent the people, they indirectly represent the victims. That's who they care about. Maybe it got to him at that moment, but I'm sure that some of the family members would say, 'Well, if that emotion is there for those victims as we saw in court, why didn't you structure the plea deal so he had to provide some answers and tell us why he did this?' Q: What were the elements of the plea deal that the families of the victims would have liked to see or leave out? A: Steve Goncalves said he wanted more facts. Not only answers to why the killings happened, but did anybody know about it or help? What happened with the knife? Why that house? Why that floor? Because in pretrial hearings, it has been said there was no connection to the victims. Q: What can we expect from the upcoming sentencing hearing? Will families get a final chance to address him in court or have any further clarity about motive? A: The big thing is going to be the victim impact statements. Attorneys don't have to argue because there's nothing to decide. A decision has been made with the agreement, so it's the victims' families. Some courts allow family members to directly look at and address the defendant, while other courts do not. It'll be interesting to see the parameter and it'll be interesting to see what they say. But here's the big one: Bryan Kohberger should be given a chance to address the court. In a normal sentencing, they are allowed to make a formal statement. Usually, that is to beg for mercy because you're about to be sentenced. In this case it would just be something he wanted to say. Will he speak? Will he say something to the families? Q: Can Kohberger appeal some aspect of his plea? A: He is waiving his right to appeal, so he will live the rest of his life within a prison in Idaho, managed by the Department of Corrections. Q: Some victims' family members complained about how quickly this happened and the Goncalves and Kernodle families criticized prosecutors for not including provisions in the plea deal that would require Kohberger to confess to specific details of the crime. The judge apologized and explained he needed to 'act quickly' once he learned of the plea agreement. Does it always happen this quickly in similar cases? A: No, it doesn't happen as quickly. The family members do not live in Boise. They had to conceivably change plans, take off work, and it's six hours from Moscow to Boise. That's quite the drive right there. They don't all live in Moscow, but they do not live in Boise. So it's highly unusual. I think it's stunning that when Kohberger was posed the questions with their names: 'Did you intentionally, deliberately and with premeditation murder Xana Kernodle?' And he responded, 'yes.' No emotion at all.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fat Joe Responds to Ex-Hypeman's Underage Sex Claims: ‘Disgusting Lies'
Fat Joe has officially responded to a salacious lawsuit filed by his ex-hypeman that accuses him of pedophilia, forced labor and sex trafficking, taking to Instagram to deny the claims and reassure fans. The post on Wednesday (June 25) is Fat Joe's first personal statement since he was sued last week by Terrance 'T.A.' Dixon, who accused the rapper of running a wide-ranging racketeering enterprise in which he trafficked underage girls for sex and subjected his employees to abusive working conditions. Fat Joe's attorneys have vehemently denied the claims and already have a pending counter-lawsuit accusing Dixon and his lawyer, Tyrone Blackburn, of extortion. More from Billboard Lawyer for Fat Joe's Ex-Hypeman Arrested After Allegedly Hitting Rapper's Process Server With Car Chris Brown Pleads Not Guilty to Assault Charges Over London Nightclub Fight Trump Extends TikTok Ban Deadline for a Third Time 'I've been tested the last few months — I've lost my big brother, my father, my mother and now I'm fighting against these disgusting lies,' wrote Fat Joe in the Instagram post. 'But please know I will not break and I will NEVER back down.' The rapper's statement echoes his attorneys' allegations that Dixon fabricated the claims in pursuit of a payday. 'They figure they can make up the most insane stories and, if they threaten you with a lawsuit, then you'll pay and they'll feel like they finally won,' he continued in the post. 'Problem with your theory,' he added, 'I've never let anyone on the streets extort me, so how would I ever let a crooked attorney and a coward ex-hype man extort me?? I'm from the Bronx!' Fat Joe's statement concludes by taking a dig directly at Blackburn: 'Since you want the clout, we will finish you in court. The time of lawyers using their law license as a badge to extort people and destroy families with no evidence is over!! I'm not the one!! You've messed with the wrong one this time!' The statement arrived the same day as another strange twist in the dispute, after Blackburn was arrested Wednesday morning and charged with assault for allegedly running over Fat Joe's process server with his car last month. Blackburn has pled not guilty to the charges, and his defense lawyer told Billboard the case seems to be 'at the very least…a misunderstanding or an accident, and at the most an attempt to extort some money out of my client.' Best of Billboard Diddy Judge Rejects Claim That Prosecutors Leaked Surveillance Tape of Cassie Assault Four Decades of 'Madonna': A Look Back at the Queen of Pop's Debut Album on the Charts Chart Rewind: In 1990, Madonna Was in 'Vogue' Atop the Hot 100