Travis may have had the same expectation.
On the other hand, a CEO of a billion dollar company should have been coached about how to politely react to criticism.
My understanding is that California law likely protects Travis in this situation because it was just him and the driver and he could thus expect privacy.
However, it's unlikely that you can prevent someone from publishing your private conversation in a Lyft or Uber, and given that most of these drivers are not high earners you're not likely to get a major payout from them, so while you might legally have the protections of privacy it still probably means very little in practice.
Personally I do not see what Kalanick did wrong here. He did not seek personal interaction with the driver. He was not abusive and IMO responded at the same level at which the driver engaged him.
That is all separate from my opinions about the (from my perspective) problem with replacing a publicly funded transport service with a for-profit effective monopoly.
There should be city-wide public transport running 24/7 driven by trained, unionized workers. Not a race-to-the-bottom, gig-economy semi-monopoly.
You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one.
In this case, the recording device was in clear view.
More broadly, the vehicle is owned by a party that has a vested interest in protecting its value. The driver also has prerogative to be able to record incidents / interactions with users so that he can report damage / throwing up. The driver also has prerogative to protect himself from legal liabilities in instances of rape, kidnap, theft, or violence.
This varies by jurisdiction.
"968.31 Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibited." ... "whoever commits any of the acts enumerated in this section is guilty of a Class H felony"
A dash cam has the several prerogatives mentioned above.
The court case would be interesting; especially if a government entity argued no expectation of privacy and no intentionality in the recording.
Hmmm, interesting. I would have thought a dash cam would be intentional, but I guess you could forget it was on. Now that I read that statute a bit closer, I see it is about the interception of communications. I really don't know what interception of oral communication is? I wonder if I am reading the right statute, lol.
"The court case would be interesting"
Yes indeed.
Edit: Here is some more relevant info, if you are in Wisconsin and want to know more; https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50
http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-...
It would be hard to prove that a reasonable person would consider a ride share private.
- You know the driver can hear you
- Not your vehicle
- Others have recently ridden in it
- In some cases, you're sharing with another unknown party (Pool/Line)
yeah, he should have been coached on it by his parents when he was five years old.