Man uses iPhone voice recorder to record Airport TSA rights violation & file lawsuit.

iphones4evry1

iphones4evry1

macrumors 65816
The new 3.0 voice recorder can be used for more than just memos.

I saw this on CNN television yesterday. A man used his iPhone to record the airport TSA violating his rights, and he is now using the iPhone recording in court to file a lawsuit.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/20/tsa.lawsuit/index.html?section=cnn_latest#cnnSTCText

Does anyone know... I thought recording a conversation was illegal? Don't the police always say on television "you are aware this is being recorded, right?" Does anyone know?
 
Recording a conversation is not llegal if it's you hey are talking to. It's your evidence.

Also this happen to Ron Paul campaign guy, so I can see this going big.
 
I had heard that is legal to record audio or video without a persons knowledge as long as the two are not recorded together, but that doesnt sound right to me
 
Varies by state. A lot of states say it's legal as long as one party knows. In this case, it would be illegal for you to record a conversation between two other people who don't have knowledge of the recording.
 
Mike2128 said:
Varies by state. A lot of states say it's legal as long as one party knows. In this case, it would be illegal for you to record a conversation between two other people who don't have knowledge of the recording.
Click to expand...

that makes more sense, is there a lawyer in the house???
 
Mike2128 said:
Varies by state. A lot of states say it's legal as long as one party knows. In this case, it would be illegal for you to record a conversation between two other people who don't have knowledge of the recording.
Click to expand...

How would that work for say.. a security camera at a store?
 
He was carrying a pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution AND just happens to be the director of development for the Campaign for Liberty? :rolleyes:

I think there is more to the story then is reported ... i.e. he intentionally was trying to get TSA to antagonize him.
 
Mike2128 said:
Varies by state. A lot of states say it's legal as long as one party knows. In this case, it would be illegal for you to record a conversation between two other people who don't have knowledge of the recording.
Click to expand...

Do federal rules (which, I believe, require only unilateral consent) automatically apply to a situation with TSA agents performing federal duties inside an airport? Or, erm, for that matter, that's the rule for wiretapping (e.g. recording a phone conversation). Wiretapping / electronic monitoring rules don't really seem to apply... since there was no electronic communication taking place. This is just covert recording of an in-person conversation.

Anyway, shock that it happened to a Ron Paulster. :p I would be surprised if anything overtly illegal happened, but I think they're within their rights to use this as leverage to make the TSA improve the specificity of its policies and also compliance with them.
 
Mike2128 said:
Varies by state. A lot of states say it's legal as long as one party knows. In this case, it would be illegal for you to record a conversation between two other people who don't have knowledge of the recording.
Click to expand...

Yup ... that's what I learned in media law class back in college. In some states, both parties have to be aware that the call is being recorded; in other states, it's OK if it's just one party.
 
I wonder if he had Penn & Teller's metal pocket size card with the bill of right on it. Hopefully he brought up the 4th amendment.
 
As far as I know, recording a conversation is not illegal as long as one party in the conversation is aware that it is being recorded.
 
Diode said:
He was carrying a pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution AND just happens to be the director of development for the Campaign for Liberty? :rolleyes:

I think there is more to the story then is reported ... i.e. he intentionally was trying to get TSA to antagonize him.
Click to expand...
AND he just happened to have his iPhone set up to discreetly record... sounds like some lawyer got VERY lucky!
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
How was he harassed if TSA was within their right to screen and he didn't cooperate (too well)?
Click to expand...

He had a bag of money. Unless a bag of money can be used as a weapon or to hijack a plane, they were way out of line.The job of the TSA inside of an airport is airport security. Not money laundering, counterfeit investigation, e.g. This is a clear cut win for the ACLU.


It's like asking a plumber to repair your car.
 
TSX said:
I wonder if he had Penn & Teller's metal pocket size card with the bill of right on it. Hopefully he brought up the 4th amendment.
Click to expand...

I have an App for that. :D
It's called "USA Manual" from iTunes.

JayLenochiniMac said:
How was he harassed if TSA was within their right to screen and he didn't cooperate (too well)?
Click to expand...
You will need to see the transcript or hear the recording (it was on CNN television, and probably on Youtube now). When they asked him questions that he thought was a violation of his rights, he replied "does this violate my rights?" The TSA employee replied with profanity demanding he answer the question, and never answered whether it violated his rights or not. Replying with profanity demanding an answer is not a violation, but the initial question might have been. One way or another, it was harassment. Would you want the TSA shouting profanity at you or your mother?
 

Attachments

  • screenshot_30.JPG
    screenshot_30.JPG
    29.8 KB · Views: 95
This is one of those not so infrequent times that groups usually not wanting to be in the same room with each other actually end up on the same side of an argument.

You can already find the "freedom, tyranny and fascism" crowd on Fox News complaining in the same way as the ACLU does about people being detained without due process of law.

It's interesting to see that, as good technology becomes widely available to people on the street, authorities who want to rewrite what really happened now more frequently get busted in the chops with hard data themselves.
 
sommls said:
This is one of those not so infrequent times that groups usually not wanting to be in the same room with each other actually end up on the same side of an argument.

You can already find the "freedom, tyranny and fascism" crowd on Fox News complaining in the same way as the ACLU does about people being detained without due process of law.

It's interesting to see that, as good technology becomes widely available to people on the street, authorities who want to rewrite what really happened now more frequently get busted in the chops with hard data themselves.
Click to expand...

Agreed, technology has really been a great tool in fighting corruption. How many public officials or instances of abuse have become public on as a result of video/audio?
 
Sanveann said:
Yup ... that's what I learned in media law class back in college. In some states, both parties have to be aware that the call is being recorded; in other states, it's OK if it's just one party.
Click to expand...

And even more interestingly, in a few states, NEITHER party needs to be aware of the telephone recording. This applies to situations where the person who pays for the phone line simply records anyone who uses it.

As for the TSA incident, just watch it on TV. He was totally polite, while the TSA/etc agents swore at and tried to bully him. They were out of line, and at least one has already been disciplined.
 
SFStateStudent said:
Don't confuse illegal "wiretapping" with recording a conversation in public....:eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

Amen. Two totally different things. I don't think most media people could do their jobs if audio recording was banned in most public places. I think there has to be a sign saying it's banned, like in a courtroom. All I know is I'm ALWAYS going to use my recorder when I'm in an accident and get the other party to say IT'S HIS FAULT when it is. Hell, I want to have 360 degrees of video cameras since police and judges don't really care about finding out the truth as long as they get their $80.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top