Originally Posted by afraidofflying

Is it correct to say that no one here knows for sure if airports record sound or not? In other words, unless signs (as in more than one and not located upside down in a tsa's lockerroom) are clearly visible then airports shoudn't be recording audio BUT they might and none of us has a clue what are our rights or lack of them when we are at airport. The same approach would be true to train, bus, taxis, and our own vehicles in the future because the same argument would be use that we have silently and unknowingly consent to wiretapping when we choose to use such luxuries instead of walking 60 miles to work or 2000 miles to see grandpa.

I wonder if an ACLU attorney would know. If they have to think about it then a commoner such as myself should not be expected to know and should resort to common sense of a regular law, which protects me from illegal wiretapping when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. My definition of reasonable expectation of privacy includes situation when I am being subjected to search and seizure and questioning outside of my control I wish to be given an opportunity to either consent or decline being audio-recorded for any reason, one of which is possible self-incriminating for anything outside the scope of tsa's role and responsibility.

For example, if tsa asked me if I rented a vehicle during my trip I have to answer truthfully. If the next question is whether I drove above the speed limit at any point in time, I would have to tell the truth as it is a felony to lie to federal agent. However, I do not consent to being recorded and such recording is used against me at a later time in the area outside the scope of tsa's role and responsibility. In other words, their job is to prevent terrorists from boarding planes so they come up with a list of questions to profile passengers; however, answers that cause no flag regarding terrorism activity can't be used against me.