Court OKs Covert iPhone Audio Recording 215
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."
Re:It's still illegal in Illinois (Score:2, Insightful)
Not in TN (and it shouldn't be, IMO).
Re:It's still illegal in Illinois (Score:2, Insightful)
We can only hope that the Federal courts can overrule this, at least on the fact of intended use.
Trying to use it to blackmail, yeah, bad. You're trying to use it in commission of a crime. PMITA prison.
Trying to use it to CYA, especially in a "He Said, She Said situation", can be the only way to protect yourself. Moreso if the other party is the police, who are given a higher degree of trust on account of their position. Ironically, seems like protecting yourself can get you more prison time than a false charge.
Just like with any other rights, there of course have to be responsibilities, and a good line to define proper recording and usage, especially considering private conversations. But when most wiretapping and recording laws seem to be geared towards saving corrupt politician bacon rather than the rights of their constituents, I have little love for them.
"quality control" (Score:3, Insightful)
Just announce at the beginning of your conversation that the call may be recorded for quality control purposes.
Re:It's still illegal in Illinois (Score:5, 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.
Useful against telemarketers (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think it should be illegal anywhere! (Score:3, Insightful)
iphone, iphone, iphone, iphone... (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?
Re:Recording police? (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect that I can be seen. But, if I'm in a park and move away from everybody in order to discuss something out of earshot of everybody else, I don't expect that it would be legal for all of the trees to be simply recording everything that happens on the off beat chance somebody, at some time is doing something shady/illegal.
Privacy doesn't mean that I get to walk around with an invisible cloak and nobody will ever know I'm there. It means being able to take reasonable steps to ensure that the conversation you're engaged in is only heard by the parties involved. Being out of ear shot of a 3rd party is a reasonable expectation that the content of the conversation is private.
Re:It's still illegal in Illinois (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Feetch! (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as recording calls, it's actually much simpler than this. All that is required for recording in two party states is a regular interval beep. Why not make the capability available to all and just insert the beeps?
Now if you want to secretly record, that's different...
A guy once told me that he secretly recorded all of his calls so he could catch people in lies... I told him that he should just tell everyone he was recording and then people would be less likely to lie in the first place. Better to get the truth up front than to try and sort through lies. So to that end, I want an app that inserts regular interval beeps into my conversation so people think they are being recorded.
Re:It's still illegal in Illinois (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised the Connecticut laws woudln't apply to face-to-face conversations; most states' intercept laws apply equally to any conversation.
In any case, this ruling doesn't really change anything. The court's finding is taken almost verbatim from the statute, so it's pretty much nonsense that a federal lawsuit - much less a federal appeal - was ever filed in the first place.
This is not a case where federal law can be used to "trump" state law. If the U.S. Congress passed a law that said "it is legal to record any conversation to which you are a party", then that might trump state all-party consent laws; but the current statute doesn't say that. It only says that recording a conversation to which you're a party isn't a violation of that specific title of the federal statutes. This is not in direct conflict with a state law of which such a recording is a violation.
I believe there are 12 all-party consent states, and some of them claim jurisdiction even for interstate phone calls if one party is in their state. Given the reality of modern telecommunication (cell phones), this ought to be unified under federal statute IMO, and I'd be quite happy to see a universal 1-party consent system.
Re:It's still illegal in Illinois (Score:2, Insightful)
I think Cook County should be a state.
That way the remainder of Illinois might have a shot at clean government & representation in the Senate.
Re:It's still illegal in Illinois (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, 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, ... no ticket and not even a field sobriety test which was why he pulled me over I have no doubt.
Me: That isn't true and you know it, but lets not argue about it
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but if that's how you talk to cops, you kind of deserve whatever happens to you.
I was going to write a well thought out insightful rebuttal to this point... but I can't quite get past "what the fuck are you saying?". People have the right to speak to police basically how they want (with few valid exceptions). People like you who kiss the cop's ass every time they look at you mean are part of the problem. If police expect everyone to treat them as if they were on a pedal stool [youtube.com], then they will treat those that don't worse.
People don't generally end up being beaten that are complying with the orders they've been given. Sure it happens, but it's hardly a common occurrence.
So your advise is to just cross your fingers, and say "yes sir" or "no sir" as appropriate, then hope that you're not one of the few people that is beaten anyway? YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Re:It's still illegal in Illinois (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing bad things is bad. The law wants you to know that.
No, doing illegal things is against the law; it has nothing whatever to do with good and bad. If you have an illicit affair with your best freind's wife, that is obviously wrong by most people's standards, but it's perfectly legal in Illinois. Your smoking a joint harms nobody, but that's illegal and they'll put you in jail for it. It's perfectly legal to go to a casino and play poker, but to sit in your kitchen playing poker with your friends is against the law. It's the same activity, how is it "bad" in your own home but "not bad" in a casino?
Re:Feetch! (Score:3, Insightful)
Manufacturers worry about being sued as an accessory for enabling a feature that directly assists in commission of a crime. If it is technically feasible that they could take measures to prevent its misuse, that becomes mandatory, else they're being reckless and contributory. Putting it in the EULA as a prohibited use might not protect them at all and serve only to prove they knew it could be used illegally.
It isn't feasible for a hammer to detect skin (let alone stop your arm in mid-swing), a car to read posted speed limits, or a gun to detect a uniform, so there's no manufacturer liability for those actions unless they marketed them for specific illegal uses.
It is however apparently feasible for a photocopier or scanner to recognize paper currency and refuse to operate. I wonder if printed-media publishers are looking into ways to make photocopiers and scanners think their pages are made of money to gain the same automated policing against casual infringement.
Re:It's still illegal in Illinois (Score:3, Insightful)
Right or Left, it doesn't make much difference. They both lie freely. Allowing a "news program" to intentionally misrepresent the truth was a very bad decision. Don't know what would have been a good one, though. If you're vulnerable if you present lies, then someone will say that you lied, and probably be able to prove it. (Nobody can be accurate all the time.) I've generally given up on the media as a source of truth, and depend more on bloggers. And THEY lie. But they're much less professional about it, so the lies are usually easier to spot.