Starbucks Drive-Thru Employee Reveals Customers Are Not Aware They’re Being Watched When Ordering

Its not about the moment before you start the conversation. If you pull up to a microphone, in full knowledge and intent to start a conversation, by your actions you not only consent, but are requiring the other person to be listening for your order. They dont open and close the the line, the line is always open so that when you are ready to order they can hear you. If the line was NOT open... how would they know you were ready? This is exactly how the the technology is supposed to be used. If people are not smart enough to realise that when they are talking into a microphone people can hear them, it is not the fault of the technology.

Seems you are missing my point. Of course the interaction with the person taking the order is completely legit, including the open line to start as a car is detected, and the line continuing to be open after completion of the order. This is indeed all implied by the way this interaction is supposed to go. What isn't implied however, is that every staffmember can listen in to this conversation, and that would be the illegal part in Belgium, as they are not active participants in the conversation. There are examples where this might put either the employee, or the customer (or both) in a situation which breaches privacy.

No, it's about that moment before you start the conversation. Sometimes you have to wait a bit for someone to finish up a different order. No need to keep the line open at that point. Sensors can indicate a car pulling up, you don't need a visual for that. I don't get why people are defending technology that's not used correctly.

(continued....) As for the drive through, you state that: "In the case of a drive through you have, in the first instance consent, in the second instance a legitimate purpose of giving effect to a transaction AND the safety of employees and that recording is triggered by sensor, so it is commensurate and reasonable in the circumstances." I completely agree on those points in principle, although the commensurate portion could be up for discussion: is it commensurate for all employees to listen in, when one employee would suffice? I'm guessing this would be the main point when talking about legality. (Also taking into account that by Belgian law, an employer may not listen in on conversations of his employees, except in a few specific exceptions, like call-centres)

Just to be clear, and to avoid this coonversation taking a wrong path: you keep referring, in several posts, to me speaking about "recording" or "not being able to record". That is not correct: I keep stating that me recording or not has no impact on this issue as per the letter of the law, so I really don't get why you keep bringing this up.... I'm talking about using the live-stream capabilities of camera's to listen in. Anyhow, on topic: The legitimate purpose which allows me to place said camera's on my driveway would be not include regular conversations. They only include "misdrijf, schade, overlast of verstoring van de openbare orde". So, according to the lawyer that taught us about these things in the course about legality of camera's and burglary alarms, this means listening to a regular conversation would be out of the question, but if they started an argument (disturbing public order), I could start listening in to make sure everybody was safe. (part 1 of 2)

(continued...) As for the drive through: this last mentioned law would seem to apply at first glance, since recording or not doesn't make a difference in the application of this law, although I do grant that there is of course the argument to be made whether or not this can be considered a private conversation or not. If not, this law obviously doesn't apply anymore. I never encountered this set-up in the years I worked in security, if I had, it would no doubt have resulted in our company contacting the privacy-commission for clarification. (Also: I haven't worked in security since jan. 2018, so my knowledge of the current laws is a bit lacking, but it seemed an interesting issue to follow up, hence my question) (part 3 of 3)

(continued ...) So , with Chapter 3, art 7, §3 in effect, it won't make a difference if there is a recording or not. But, as the camera law of 2007/2018 doesn't state anything about audio, we have to look at the general privacy-laws. Which brings us to: "30 JUNI 1994. - Wet ter bescherming van de persoonlijke levenssfeer tegen het afluisteren, kennisnemen en openen van privé-communicatie en -telecommunicatie." Article 2 states that an additional punishable offence to be added to the penal law will be: Book II, Title V, Chapter VIIbis, Art. 314bis. § 1: ofwel, opzettelijk, met behulp van enig toestel privé-communicatie of -telecommunicatie, waaraan hij niet deelneemt, tijdens de overbrenging ervan, afluistert of doet afluisteren, er kennis van neemt of doet van nemen, opneemt of doet opnemen, zonder de toestemming van alle deelnemers aan die communicatie of telecommunicatie; This is how we were taught this in the legal required training to work as a security advisor. (part 2 of 3)

Thank you for mentioning you're a lawyer in the Netherlands, so I'm going to mix languages here for convenience sake, and not going to translate the law texts, since you can understand Flemish :-) So, for the driveway: that would be defined as "niet voor het publiek toegankelijke besloten plaats" (so an enclosed private area). The camera law of 2018 only makes an exception for indoor camera's, so "Wet van 21 maart 2007 tot regeling van de plaatsing en het gebruik van bewakingscamera's" would apply for an outdoor camera aimed at my own driveway. (it is this law that was revised and finetuned by the 2018 legislation, but the part of the area distinctions was already in place earlier). In this law, chapter 3, article 7, paragraph 3 states: "Het bekijken van deze beelden in real time is uitsluitend toegestaan om onmiddellijk te kunnen ingrijpen bij misdrijf, schade, overlast of verstoring van de openbare orde."

Belgian privacy laws are pretty strict in that regard: you give implied consent for one person: the one taking the order. The others have no need to hear the conversation in order to complete the transaction, so are not implied by the service. To give you an idea about how strict privacy laws are over here: it would, for instance, also be illegal for me to use camera's with built in microphones to listen in to a conversation my wife is having with her parents, on our own driveway, even if both she and her parents are aware that those camera's are in place, and me being registered as owner. So my question isn't about the legality of the setup, since I am sure it is illegal (I've worked in the security business for about 6 years, selling these systems). So, my actual question is whether or not there are multiple people listening in on the order or not in drive throughs.

Laws vary between states and quite significantly between countries, even among European countries (despite attempts to have a uniform law). Recording is often treated differently by the law than simply listening. Although definitions vary, commmon distintictions are along the following lines : I can listen to a conversation with implied consent but I can only RECORD a conversation with EXPRESS consent, and therein lies a difference. By using the speaker service to order food I consent to someone listening to me, but I dont necessarily consent to them RECORDING the conversation. Often drive through places also have a sign of a camera warning people that they are being recorded. If there is a sign, then I am on notice that I am being recorded and I still continue to use the service, then I am expressly consenting to being recorded.