I did find the following about taping in South Carolina:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/southcarolina.html http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c017.htm SC Peeping Tom law (scroll down to Section 16-17-470
Based on what I read about the law, I see two issues:
1. The individual must have an expectation of privacy - SC 16-17-470 does define what is considered as an expectation of privacy. The closest one that might apply would be: "(b) a place where one would reasonably expect to be safe from hostile intrusion or surveillance."
Going to the pool you are out in the public. I expect that the cameras are not in the dressing rooms, where an individual would have an expectation of privacy. Therefore, this would be no different than parents bringing a camera to the pool to capture video of their children and you are in the shot.
A side note to this issue is that the pool is probably private (i.e. only for members of the Association or their guests). However, if there are no restrictions preventing members from bringing cameras to the pool, I still think it would be difficult to have an expectation of privacy.
2. What is exempt from this statute - Per SC 16-17-40 the closest exemption that would apply would be: "(2) security surveillance for the purposes of decreasing or prosecuting theft, shoplifting, or other security surveillance measures in bona fide business establishments"
An argument could be made that the Association is a business. If this argument is accepted then one needs to identify what surveillance is. Fortunately the statute defines surveillance; ""Surveillance" means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person".
Conclusions 1. Expectation of Privacy - it's probably 50/50 if there is an expectation of privacy at an Associations pool. It would probably need to be tested in a court of law.
2. Are HOA's exempt from this law - I think that they are. Granted, they are not exactly what people see as a business establishment. However, it is certainly being used for the same thing as conventional businesses, decreasing or prosecuting theft or damage.
3. I suspect that if the Association placed signs saying the area was under video surveillance, they would be better protected.
4. It is possible that this video could be used for things identified in the SC statute that would make it a crime. However, any video could be used for that (as it depends on the individual viewing the video). Therefore, safeguards need to be put in place to maintain proper custody of any recordings.
Adena, could you make a case. Possibly. However, you would have to
prove what the footage was being used for and that you indeed did have an expectation of privacy when you used the pool. The larger question is, would you win such a case? I would give you less then a 50/50 chance of winning. You might win, but I don't think so.
I also believe, that if the Association installs signs identifying that cameras are used, the expectation of privacy is nullified as an individual would have been informed of the cameras. As I said earlier, the larger issue is if the cameras can be viewed remotely, what steps is the Association taking to minimize the risk that unauthorized persons will not see what the camera sees.
I would make the following recommendation:
Write a letter to the Board explaining your concerns over the cameras and the potential liability issue to the Association. Encourage them to install signage about the cameras and not have remote viewable cameras unless they are hard wired to the remote facility (managers office perhaps) as the Association has a duty to minimize the camera images from being used in a way that could violate S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-470. Encourage them to seek a legal opinion on the cameras and this statute.
You should know that I am not an attorney and I do not work in the legal profession. I am offering this advise based on the information in your posting, personal experiences, research and, hopefully, common sense.
I hope it helps,
Tim