Slashdot Mirror


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."

7 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's still illegal in Illinois by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:Most states already have an "either party" stat by SoupGuru · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
  3. iphone, iphone, iphone, iphone... by rosvall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:iphone, iphone, iphone, iphone... by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  4. Re:Recording police? by corbettw · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  5. Feetch! by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  6. Re:It's still illegal in Illinois by Jumperalex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If you can't be good, be good at it!