Court OKs Covert iPhone Audio Recording

Tootech writes "Using an iPhone to secretly record a conversation is not a violation of the Wiretap Act if done for legitimate purposes, a federal appeals court has ruled. 'The defendant must have the intent to use the illicit recording to commit a tort of crime beyond the act of recording itself,' the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. Friday's decision, which involves a civil lawsuit over a secret audio recording produced from the 99-cent Recorder app, mirrors decisions in at least three other federal appeals courts."

Comments

It's still illegal in Illinois

[mcgrew]

It doesn't break Federal law, but it may be against state law. Recording someone without their consent is a felony in Illinois, and probably other states as well.

Re:It's still illegal in Illinois

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Blago's getting only 5 years for what he did.

No, Illinois, you've guys have turned dirty pool into stagecraft.

Re:It's still illegal in Illinois

[LambdaWolf]

The act becomes retroactively illegal based on subsequent illegal acts--or plans to commit illegal acts--which is just stupid.

It makes more sense if you understand the concept of mens rea. The act does not become illegal retroactively as you say; it is illegal or not, at the time you make the recording, based on your state of mind at that same time. In other words, you're guilty if and only if you're thinking to do harm, which is actually pretty universal in criminal law (setting aside criminal negligence and "victimless crimes"). IANAL.

Re:Most states already have an "either party" stat

[cgenman]

There are twelve 2-party states out there, and some of them are big ones like California and Florida. And calling a two-party state from a one-party state does mean you need to follow the laws of both states.

Check your local rules before you start recording.

Re:Most states already have an "either party" stat

[SoupGuru]

I admin a phone system in Idaho, a one party consent state. Basically, we can record anything without warning, even calls from two-party consent states.

Re:Recording police?

[corbettw]

It's never been illegal to record police in public. That hasn't stopped certain corrupt police departments and district attorneys from persecuting people who do so, of course, but they've used twisted logic, not actual law, to make their cases. Radley Balko at Reason has done a number of excellent exposes on this problem.

Re:Most states already have an "either party" stat

[Have Brain Will Rent]

He said calls from two party states not calls to two party states.

Re:iphone, iphone, iphone, iphone...

[MarkGriz]

Why is it important that the recording was performed with this particular device?

It isn't. It's a WIRED-vertisement, and now a slashvertisement as well.

Re:Most states already have an "either party" stat

[tomhudson]

If you called California from TN and recorded the conversation without the consent of the other party, you could be charged under CA law. If you were convicted, CA could request that TN extradite you to CA. I do not know of any case where one state has refused another state's extradition request.

Absolutely false - they need to extradite you first, THEN you have a trial. Not going to happen too often. So if you're in a one-party jurisdiction, record away, now that federal law outweighs the 2-party state laws for inter-state communications.

Re:Feetch!

[Inda]

Strange.

I had a Panasonic over 15 years ago and it could record calls. It was basic and could only record for a number of seconds. I guess now it was for recording spoken addresses and phone numbers. I never used it.

My last Sony could record calls. This was 4 or 5 years ago. Horrible Sony proprietary audio file. I never used it.

My current Samsung, that's a couple of years old, can record calls. A nice mp3, on the memory card, as you'd expect. I've never used it

I've never owned a Nokia, but I guess they record calls too..?

Stop buying phones in the US, I'd say.