With Illinois planning to appeal the Michael Allison case, in which the state wants to put Allison in jail for 75 years because he recorded an interaction with the police, it's worth pointing out that this is not the only such case in Illinois. A few people have sent over this ABC report about another guy, Louis Frobe, who was arrested and told he was facing 15 years in jail for daring to turn on his Flip cam during a traffic stop. You can see the video of the traffic stop in the news report below. Yes, note the irony: the whole thing was recorded (without Frobe's permission) by the police car camera, but the second the officer sees the Flip cam, he tells Frobe he's committed a felony and arrests him: The key part:

Frobe calls it the worst experience of his life. He was on his way to a late evening movie on an August night last year when he was stopped for speeding in far north suburban Lindenhurst. He didn't believe he was in a 35-mile-an-hour zone, and he figured if he was going to get ticket he wanted to be able to document his challenge with video evidence, so he got out his flip camera, which he was not very adept at using.

At one point he held it out the window trying to record where he was. When the officer, being recorded on his squad dash cam, walked back to Frobe's car, the officer saw Frobe's camera.

Officer: "That recording? Frobe : "Yes, Yes, I've been... Officer: "Was it recording all of our conversation? Frobe: "Yes. Officer: "Guess what? You were eavesdropping on our conversation. I did not give you permission to do so. Step out of the vehicle."

Louis Frobe was then cuffed and arrested for felony eavesdropping.

Yes, eavesdropping. On himself.

In this case, prosecutors eventually dropped the charges, but Frobe turned around and sued them for the arrest in the first place. The Illinois Attorney General -- who still insists there's no First Amendment right to record the police -- has said Frobe's case should be dismissed since he has no standing. Of course, this is a nearly identical fact pattern to the Glik case in Massachusetts, where the court not only allowed Glik to sue but found 1st and 4th Amendment problems with the arrest. These are different circuits, so the ruling in Massachusetts doesn't directly act as precedent for Illinois, but it certainly can be cited and discussed.

Earlier this month, we wrote about the ridiculous criminal case against Michael Allison, who was facing 75 years in prison for the horrible crime of recording the police. The details of the case made it quite clear that the charges against him were vindictive, in response to attempts by Allison to challenge a questionable fine he'd received. Thankfully, an Illinois state court tossed out the lawsuit, noting that the law pretty clearly violated the First Amendment.

Of course, for whatever reason, Illinois state law enforcement has taken particular interest in the case, with the state Attorney General office coming in to help with the case, and the Illinois Assistant Attorney General flat out claiming that there's no First Amendment right to record police. So, it should probably come as little surprise that the state has indicated that it's planning to appeal the ruling (via Radley Balko). Perhaps this isn't a surprise -- but it does suggest a really broken system where the state is so adamant in trying to vindictively punish a guy for defending his own rights.

Reason.com alerts us to an LA Times article covering a recent trial in which a private citizen's cellphone video proved officers lied about an arrest, resulting in the acquittal of a young man accused of carrying a concealed firearm.

According to police reports after the arrest:

Deputy Levi Belville testified that he saw Gipson in the side yard run and toss a loaded revolver onto the roof of a detached garage. The deputy said he ordered Gipson to stop and that the suspect walked back to Belville, who then detained him.

However, the cellphone video depicted a very different chain of events:

The footage did not show Gipson running, tossing a gun or walking back to the deputies to be detained. Instead, the grainy video showed deputies arriving and walking past Gipson, who was standing against a wall of the house near the rear of the yard. One of the deputies, Raul Ibarra, returned to Gipson and escorted him to the back of the yard.

This new footage led to a change in the way the officers describe the events. This inconsistency in the officer's testimony led jurors to acquit Gipson of the charges.

Jurors said they did not find Belville's trial testimony credible and believed he changed his account of the arrest after being confronted with the video. They also questioned why a deputy with more than 10 years' experience would walk past a man who had just thrown a gun without immediately detaining him or warning colleagues.

Even as police and governments around the country are fighting the practice of the public recording the actions of the police, stories like this show the power that such recordings have in administering a fair justice system. Without this video, the trial would have been based entirely on the officer's testimony of events rather than on hard evidence.

I will close with a few words from Gipson himself in response to these events, "I never thought an officer would lie."

While I definitely don't agree with famed 7th Circuit appeals court judge Richard Posner on everything, he's generally recognized as a smart judge with a strong libertarian belief and a recognition and understanding of real economic issues. However, there are a few times when he seems to just reach a weird conclusion. Case in point: in a case involving Illinois' somewhat ridiculous "eavesdropping" law, which makes you a criminal just for recording the police with a mobile phone, Judge Posner has suggested that letting people film police is undesirable:

"If you permit the audio recordings, they'll be a lot more eavesdropping.…There's going to be a lot of this snooping around by reporters and bloggers," U.S. 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner said. "Yes, it's a bad thing. There is such a thing as privacy."...

Say what now? We're talking about recording public officials who are paid with taxpayer dollars doing a job in public, and Posner is worried about their privacy rights? Wouldn't it be a good thing for reporters and bloggers to be "snooping around" police if it turns up problems or corruption? And, really, since other courts have already declared similar rules unconstitutional, and it hasn't rendered those kinds of states into this crazy dystopia that judge Posner envisions, shouldn't that be evidence that these "concerns" are out of touch with reality?

There was a recent ruling in a copyright dispute between Swatch (the watchmakers) and Bloomberg that could have troubling implications concerning wiretapping issues. Effectively, it presents a blueprint for how to use copyright law to block otherwise perfectly legal recordings. At issue was that Swatch held an analysts call, as most public companies do regularly. It's pretty standard for various financial firms to push out transcripts of such calls and to report/analyze them. In this case, Bloomberg recorded the call and offered a transcript to its subscribers. Pretty standard stuff. But... here, Swatch claimed copyright on the call. Why? Because they also recorded it (via a partner company), and since that recording was "fixed," they could claim that it was covered by copyright, and then sued Bloomberg.

This ruling was on a motion to dismiss from Bloomberg, which the judge rejected, claiming that Swatch properly established that it had a valid copyright in the recording. It also declined to rule on the fair use claim at this point, though one hopes that, at a later stage, the fair use argument gets a stronger hearing.

The real problem with this ruling is what it could mean when you think about the consequences. As Paul Alan Levy notes, this appears to expand copyright law "far beyond its intended scope." Think about it for a minute. It means that as long as you record yourself while doing something, you can stop anyone from (a) recording you or (b) quoting you, if they quote an amorphous "too much" of what you said in the recording. It's not hard to see scenarios where this is problematic.

Most obviously, at a press conference (which this Swatch call was quite like), a reporter, who pulls out his or her recorder, could be violating the copyright of whoever is holding the conference. Furthermore, if in the process of reporting on the conference, they quote too much of what was said... well, they could face copyright infringement claims.

But let's take it a step further. We just reported on the Massachusetts ruling that said that recording the police was legal. But... what if the police also recorded themselves... and then claimed copyright on that audio. According to this ruling, it's possible that the copyright would be considered legit, and then you'd have to go to court to argue the fair use claim.

That's clearly not what copyright law is intended for, but it's a very real implication of this ruling.

As police are insisting that having the public record them is a dangerous situation that shouldn't be allowed, we get a striking example of just how important that right is at times. Julian Sanchez points us to a story of a guy in Philadelphia, who had a license to carry a firearm in a city where it's legal to openly carry a firearm -- but who ran into a police officer who apparently did not understand his city's own laws:

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?"

Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

You can hear all of this via the YouTube clip, embedded here: It gets worse and worse. Dougherty threatens to shoot Fiorino for trying to show him his license:

Fiorino offered to show Dougherty his driver's and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees.

"Excuse me?" Fiorino said.

"Get down on your knees. Just obey what I'm saying," Dougherty said.

"Sir," Fiorino replied, "I'm more than happy to stand here -"

"If you make a move, I'm going to f------ shoot you," Dougherty snapped. "I'm telling you right now, you make a move, and you're going down!"

"Is this necessary?" Fiorino said.

Other cops show up and they continue to curse at him and scream at him, while he calmly responds to their claims. They discover that he has a recording device in his pocket, and they go even more ballistic, telling him he broke the law with that as well. Eventually, they finally realize that he wasn't breaking the law with the gun and let him go... But once he posted the audio on YouTube, suddenly the District Attorney took renewed interest in the case, and charged him with "reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct," claiming that he refused to cooperate with police. If you listen to the tapes, it's hard to see how anyone could make that claim with a straight face. It seems pretty clear, from the beginning, that it's the police who were recklessly endangering someone and who were disorderly in how they dealt with Fiorino.

No matter what your opinion is on guns or open carry rules, it's hard to see how this guy deserves the treatment he received from police who clearly did not understand the law in their own city -- and it's even more ridiculous to see him facing a (trumped up) charge, after he uploaded the audio. It seems like a pretty clear case of vindictive prosecution, even as part of the issue is that the very thing that pissed off law enforcement is precisely what proves this guy was perfectly reasonable throughout the encounter.

We've seen numerous stories in the last year of police abusing anti-wiretap laws to go after people who record police activities in public. Thankfully, there are some people who realize this is wrong. A Connecticut state senator, Martin Looney, has apparently introduced legislation that not only says that it's the right of citizens to record on-duty police officers, but (more importantly) gives citizens a civil action against police officers if they violate that right. As Radley Balko points out at that link:

That second part is important. A right doesn’t mean much if there are no consequences for government officials who ignore it. Witness this case in Florida, where an officer erroneously tries to say federal law prohibits citizen recordings of cops. Even in states where courts have thrown out criminal charges, a cop who doesn’t want to be recorded can still harass, threaten, and even arrest you. You may not be charged. But he won’t be punished, either.

It would definitely be nice if a similar rule was taken up at the federal level.

There are a variety of different tools out there that let you "record" a YouTube video and turn it into an MP3, just as there are a variety of tools out there for converting Pandora streams to MP3s or converting internet radio to MP3s. Technically it's no different than "recording" something you hear off the radio, which is generally considered legal under the Audio Home Recording Act (which had plenty of bad things in it, but also included protections for people recording at home for personal use).

We may get a test of whether or not that applies to the online world, with the news that former Gnutella P2P client MP3Rocket has changed strategies and ditched its P2P offering to switch to an app that simply records YouTube videos and turns them into MP3s. The company seems to be relying on the Supreme Court's Betamax ruling, by claiming that since all it's really doing is "time shifting" the ability to listen to music streamed via YouTube, it's no different than the ruling that said it was okay to record television shows via video cassettes.

Of course, RIAA supporters and the like will quickly counter by pointing to the various lawsuits over whether or not XM's recording device was legal. Most of those lawsuits ended in settlements, so I don't think there's as strong a precedent that says that turning digital streams is infringement. However, you'd have to imagine that there's going to be one hell of a lawsuit either way.

The reality is that this is yet another case of the law not being able to keep up with technology. There simply is no intellectually honest rationale that says recording songs off the radio is legal, but recording songs off your computer is illegal. It's a weak attempt by an industry that doesn't want to deal with changing technology to put in place laws that prevent what the technology allows. Those never work.

It certainly would be nice to see the Supreme Court note that something like this really is no different than the Betamax ruling, but given the Supreme Court's various bad copyright rulings over the last few years, I have little faith that it will do so. Instead, it would likely just use a case like this to chip further away at the Betamax ruling, just as the Grokster decision did.

We've had a few stories about how police have been abusing wiretap laws to arrest people who video or audiotape the police, and here's a whopper of a case. Apparently a woman named Tiawanda Moore has been arrested and faces 15 years in prison in a case that goes to trial shortly. Her "crime"? Apparently, after being sexually assaulted by a Chicago police officer, she went to the Chicago Police Department's internal affairs group to report the officer. After being pressured not to file a report, she pulled out her mobile phone and started recording what was going on. The officers in the room saw this... and arrested her for eavesdropping. Oh yeah, while her trial starts shortly, the officer she reported is still "being investigated."

We already covered the guy who was arrested after stripping down for the TSA, highlighting how one of the charges was his failure to complete the security procedure (after stripping down, he pointed out there was no need for a pat down...). However, there was a second charge that was even more troubling that actually deserves a separate post, which is that he was also charged with "illegally recording the San Diego Airport Authority." I was trying to figure out the exact rule (listed as 7.14a), and some of the folks over at Flyertalk have posted the full 7.14 rule (or you can see the full San Diego Airport Authority rules (pdf) if you'd like):

(a) No person shall take still, motion or sound motion pictures or voice recordings on the facilities and airports under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (the "Authority") without written permission from the Authority's Executive Director or his or her designee.

(b) Filming of X-ray equipment located on the facilities and airports under the jurisdiction of the Authority is strictly prohibited. Any person(s) caught filming such X-ray equipment may have their film confiscated.

I'm having trouble seeing how this rule can possibly be legal -- especially with all the stories today of TSA agents abusing (or simply not understanding) the new rules. Recording the interactions with the TSA seems like an essential step in making sure that personal liberties are respected. Making that illegal raises all sorts of questions. And while this is specific to San Diego Airport, it makes me wonder if there are similar restrictions elsewhere.

Just a few months ago, we pointed out how law enforcement and the courts were abusing wiretap laws to find people guilty of wiretapping for recording law enforcement in public places. Thankfully, some courts have pushed back on such cases, and it seems like this is a situation where declaring an outright ban on videotaping within the airport is a restriction that doesn't make any sense at all.