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

[mcgrew]

it shouldn't be, IMO

I agree. I call it the "liar's law". Of course, with the dirty politics we have in Illinois, it's no wonder legislators don't want their words held against them.

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.

Re:It's still illegal in Illinois

[commodore64_love]

My main concern is the ability to record cops while I'm being questioned. I need that protection.

COP: "Sir turn off that recorder."
ME: "Why? So you can beat me up, like the other cops I've seen on youtube beating innocent citizens?"

Re:It's still illegal in Illinois

[Tassach]

I don't think the old lady who was the lone holdout was "less politically sophisticated". My bet is she was a life-long straight-party-ticket voter. There's a lot of people out there (on both sides) who think that anything is OK as long as their party is the one that's doing it. "He may be a crook, but he's OUR crook"

Re:It's still illegal in Illinois

[HungryHobo]

Lets follow that path a little.
Someone could edit a letter between themselves and someone else and release that, should keeping correspondence without the explicit permission of both parties be illegal because of that?

And if the editing is malicious and misrepresents someone then it should be covered under libel laws.

All your approach does is allow politicians and policemen know when they should actually pay attention to the rulebook rather than having to stick to it all the time.

Re:It's still illegal in Illinois

[Jumperalex]

and if what you are "told to do" is to turn off your legal recording device so they can harrass you then what? You are pathetic with a capital P; just lick the hand that beats you while you are at it.

Deserve? DESERVE?!?! are you friggin kidding me. First while I generally do speak to cops with respect it is because they come at me from a place of respect (like the last bullshit ticket I got which I 100% deserved but the scenario was still bogus and the cop should have warned me and moved on). But, if they start out from a place of bullshit, like pulling me over for no good reason and I KNOW I'm 100% on the legal side, I will and HAVE called a cop a liar to his face

Cop tailgates me in the right lane at 2am for 5 miles with his highbeams on between Cincinatti and Dayon OH. Cruise control is set at one mile below limit. He FINALLY pulls me over:

Cop: I pulled you over because you crossed the white line,
Me: That isn't true and you know it, but lets not argue about it ... no ticket and not even a field sobriety test which was why he pulled me over I have no doubt.

And this has nothing to do with complying with orders. This has to do with legally recording an interaction with a public official to ensure he does not abuse his authority, even while complying. Or more to the point, to PROVE that you complied, and the abuse still happened. You don't think it happens very often huh? Gee I guess we'll have a hard time knowing without the recordings. Oh wait, we DO have the recordings so we know it DOES happen.

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.

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: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.

I don't think it should be illegal anywhere!

[anglico]

There are way too many people lying and getting away with it nowadays, politicians or otherwise. Do I want all my conversations recorded, no, but I've tried to live with the motto of "Say what you mean and mean what you say". I wont say anything about someone unless I am willing to say it to their face and I think that is something missing from society today. I've had instances where a recorded conversation would have come in very handy in defending myself from ex girlfriend's attacks but it wasn't that big of a deal to me.

iphone, iphone, iphone, iphone...

[rosvall]

Why is it important that the recording was performed with this particular device?
Are these kinds of rulings specific to the equipment used, or is this just the kind of story that needs buzzwords to get attention from certain demographics?

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: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.

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?