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

Most states already have an "either party" statute

[tomhudson]

... where, as long as ONE of the parties of the conversation are aware it's being recorded, then it's legal.

For them, this just affirms "business as usual".

Re:It's still illegal in Illinois

[Entropius]

The decision says that simply making the recording is not a tort or crime per se, but if you intend to use the recording to commit a tort or crime, then making the recording is itself prohibited.

i.e. I can record you admitting that you're having an affair and send the recording to your spouse, but if I intend to use the recording to blackmail you, then the recording is itself a crime.

Feetch!

[HTH NE1]

This has annoyed me for awhile now.

I'm carrying a device that makes phone calls, plays music, has digital memory, and sometimes includes the ability to take voice memos, but it does not include built-in a feature for recording incoming and outgoing phone calls to that memory, all because of differing jurisdictions over whether or not you can record calls to which you're a party.

These things have GPS built-in! Can't you just code the feature so that it complies with your location's laws?! Disable for certain corrupt-government regions, enable for others but regularly beeps, starts with an automated announcement, or runs in stealth mode according to your jurisdiction? Come on!

As a bonus, include the ability to disable cell phones entirely based on GPS location so you no longer have to confiscate them when people enter your military base.

And hey, can we get an exclusion to the wiretapping law for parents and legal guardians of minors so that they can monitor little Jimmy's drug trafficking deals and Jenny's prostitution hook-ups?

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

[SirGarlon]

Lawmakers and judges don't understand technology, so the law does regard different technologies as totally different. So for example the government can read your e-mail without a warrant but can't read your postal mail without a warrant; VoIP has different regulations than circuit-switched telephones; video rental records are mandated by Federal law to be private, but your Web browsing history is not. It's madness.

Whether an existing law applies to a new technology, or not, is pretty much a roll of the dice.

Re:It's still illegal in Illinois

[mcgrew]

Don't blame the whole state for what is really just the fault of Chicago and its exurbs. The people living in the rest of Illinois try to clean-up the corruption

You don't live in Illinois, do you? The whole state is crooked. Cahokia (down by St Louis) has had the same Mayor for decades, despite the fact that it changed from a nice suburb to a ghetto after they paved E. St. Louis. I grew up there, Cahokia was always corrupt.

I'm living in Springfield now, and the legislators come here for legislating sessions. The way those folks drive you can see that the people making the laws have less respect for them than anyone. A pair of judges here got into hot water a month or two back for one fixing the other's daughter's traffic ticket. A cop here was found planting evidence on a drug suspect.

The citizens would like it cleaned up, but we're powerless; we get the candidates that get nominated. Do I vote for a shit sandwich or a turd sandwich?

Re:It's still illegal in Illinois

[PopeRatzo]

You know, instead of playing the whole thing, you only show the 2 minutes of relevant material.

Are you saying the part immediately after the edit where Sherrod explained how she decided not to be racist and to help the white farmers and learned from the experience was irrelevant?

If you publish an excerpt with the intent to show racism, and the part immediately after you make the edit shows that there wasn't racism, that's really sleazy character assassination, and probably grounds for legal action (which is now underway). And coming from a man who claims to be an example of "conservative journalism", I'd say that makes Andrew Breitbart a lying, greasy douche-nozzle. And before you make what I expect to be your next rationalization, yes, Breitbart admitted to knowing that the tape was edited and also knowing about what was edited out.