Listen up, kids. Big Brother can’t tap your phones, but mom and dad can.
So said the state Court of Appeals in a legally groundbreaking opinion that uses a Knox County custody battle as the backdrop.
“The parties agree that this is an issue of first impression in Tennessee,” Appellate Judge Charles D. Susano Jr., wrote in a recently released opinion.
Since 1994, it has been a crime in the state of Tennessee to secretly record or eavesdrop on a phone call between two unsuspecting speakers.
That made tapping a cheating spouse’s phone, for instance, to garner proof of a liaison a legal no-no, punishable by both jail time and civil damages.
But what if mom secretly records a chat between dad and daughter and then uses it in a custody fight? Do children have a right to telephonic privacy?
Until now, the issue had never been tested. Enter Knox County parents Chris Lawrence and Leigh Ann Lawrence and their toddler daughter, then 30-months-old.
While father and daughter chatted on the phone in the spring of 2007, Leigh Ann Lawrence held up a tape recorder to a phone in another room and recorded the conversation. She later insisted she wasn’t trying to hide the taping from her daughter – just the recorder itself because the toddler “would have wanted to sing into the tape recorder or play with it,” the opinion noted.
Leigh Ann Lawrence then gave a copy of the tape to a psychologist who was conducting a custody evaluation as part of the Lawrences’ divorce case in Knox County Circuit Court, according to the opinion.
When Chris Lawrence found out about the tape, he sued under Tennessee’s wiretapping law.
His attorney, Andrew Fox, argued Leigh Ann Lawrence clearly violated the law because neither her daughter nor her estranged husband “consented” to the recording. Her lawyer, Deno Cole, countered that a parent doesn’t need a child’s permission to monitor or record the calls of his or her offspring.
The law itself is silent on the issue, so Circuit Judge Dale Workman plowed new legal ground when he ruled that the wiretapping law did not apply to children secretly recorded by parents. Chris Lawrence appealed.
Had Workman plowed too deep? Not according to the appellate court.
“A parent has a right to childrearing autonomy unless and until a showing is made of a substantial danger of harm to the child,” Susano wrote. “It is readily apparent to us that childrearing autonomy encompasses control of a 2 1/2-year-old child’s access to the telephone.
“The pertinent question in this case is whether the Legislature intended to subject a parent to criminal penalties and money damages for eavesdropping, from another telephone, on a 2 1/2-year-old child’s telephone conversation without the child’s knowledge,” he continued. “We do not believe the Legislature intended to invade the parent-child relationship (with the wiretapping law).”
Teenagers, take heart, however.
The court opined that a case involving a toddler was a bit of a no-brainer when deciding the level of a parent’s control over the phone. It left open the possibility of further legal debate should the wiretapping involve an older child.
“We are not, by this opinion, painting a bright line as to age,” Susano noted. “Since 2 1/2 is obviously an age at which a child is too young to give consent, we see no need to determine a bright line rule in this case.”
Jamie Satterfield may be reached at 865-342-6308. Follow her on Twitter at twitter.com/jamiescoop.
The inquiry had been prompted by an article in The New York Times Magazine in September that cited former News of the World journalists saying that Mr. Coulson, during his time as editor, had encouraged reporters to eavesdrop on messages belonging to public personalities.
Mr. Coulson, who carries broad powers as a member of Mr. Cameronâs inner policy circle, has denied the charges, and prosecutors said Friday that the witnesses they had interviewed âeither refused to cooperate with the police investigation, provided short statements which did not advance matters or denied any knowledge of wrongdoing.â
The police said Friday that four of the witnesses had been interviewed âunder caution,â meaning that any statement they made could be used against them in a possible prosecution, lawyers say. Other witnesses had been interviewed, the police said, without clarifying how many. Mr. Coulson was question by investigators last month.
Giving evidence in an unrelated case on Friday, Mr. Coulson reiterated his innocence, saying, âI had absolutely no knowledge of it. I certainly didnât instruct anyone to do anything at the time or anything else which was untoward.â
Mr. Coulson was testifying as a witness in a separate case against Tommy Sheridan, a politician from Scotland, who faces perjury charges related to a libel case against The News of the World, which is part of Rupert Murdochâs global media empire.
In the trial, it was alleged that during Mr. Coulsonâs tenure as editor he had encouraged numerous reporters to make use of a private investigator to secure private phone material and that he asked Clive Goodman, a reporter, âto take the blame for the sake of the paper.â
After a police investigation, Mr. Goodman, The News of the Worldâs royal editor, and Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator, were jailed in 2007. They pleaded guilty to illegally intercepting the telephone voice mail messages of Prince William and Prince Harry and their aides.
At the time, Mr. Coulson, who was appointed editor of The News of the World in 2003, said that he had no knowledge of the hacking and that it was an isolated case, but resigned from the paper in January 2007 after the two men were jailed.
Since then, The Guardian printed an article saying that hundreds of people might have been singled out by The News of the World and provided details about some of them, including Gordon Taylor, former chief executive of the Professional Footballersâ Association, who reached a settlement of ÂŁ700,000, or about $1.1 million, with The News of the World over the hacking of his cellphone.
This year, a leading public relations executive, Max Clifford, who had brought a separate lawsuit, reached his own agreement with The News of the World. Several other civil cases were also initiated, through which more details of phone-hacking allegations might still emerge.
The Times Magazine article led British prosecutors to investigate again whether Mr. Coulson had encouraged such activities at The News of the World and whether the practice was widespread, not just carried out by Mr. Goodman.
In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said that the police had investigated the allegations of Sean Hoare, one of the journalists who figured prominently in the magazine story, interviewing him and others, but that they had either refused to cooperate or gave perfunctory statements.
âAgainst that background, there is no admissible evidence upon whichâ the Crown Prosecution Service âcould properly advise the police to bring criminal charges,â the statement said.
The crown prosecution said that if additional information came to the fore, it would be taken into account. In that instance, prosecutors said, a joint panel would be convened of officials from the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service that would judge any further developments in the case.
Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions for the Crown Prosecution Service, said that âa criminal prosecution can only take place if those making allegations of wrongdoing are prepared to cooperate with a criminal investigation and to provide admissible evidence of the wrongdoing they allege.â
For Mr. Cameron, whose coalition government is already under siege because of its move to increase fees for university students, the decision represented a small measure of relief â easing the pressure on one of his more trusted advisers.
Paul Farrelly, an opposition member of Parliament, said, âThere are still ongoing parliamentary investigations into this affair.â
Graham Bowley contributed reporting from New York.
UNDER FIRE: Former ALP senator Stephen Loosely says Senator Arbib is no spy. Picture: AFP Source: The Australian
MARK Arbib was not a spy and was in fact acting in Australia’s interests when he told US diplomats what was going on inside the ALP.
Anyone who says otherwise is anti-American, insists former ALP senator Stephen Loosely.
Mr Loosley said Senator Arbib was doing nothing more than politicians from the Labor and Liberal parties had been doing for decades when it came to frank, private political discussions with envoys from Australia’s closest ally.
Senator Arbib, the Sports Minister, was portrayed as a spy in the Fairfax press yesterday after he was named in WikiLeaks cables as one of several politicians who discussed with US envoys the inner workings of the Labor Party, including leadership issues, just before Kevin Rudd was deposed as prime minister.
Mr Loosley admitted that he was one of several Labor Party members who tipped off US diplomats in Sydney in late 1991 about the probability that Paul Keating would depose Bob Hawke as prime minister.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
“A lot of people, including myself, were involved in those conversations with the Americans, because it was very much in our national interest that the Americans were clear about what was happening inside the government,” Mr Loosley told The Australian yesterday.
“The notion that Mark Arbib is somehow a spy is truly absurd and offensive. The Australia-US relationship is based firmly on trust, and the reason we have such a relationship is because both sides are constantly working the patch as far as politics and policy is concerned.”
Mr Loosley, a member of the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, attacked Senator Arbib’s critics as anti-American.
“For some elements of the political class, the closeness in our relationship with the Americans is always equated to subservience, but that is simply not true,” he said. “It is a two-way process, and this sort of discussion also helps Australia form views about our allies.”
Former politicians and diplomats said yesterday the unique nature of the Australia-US relationship meant there was broader and more open dialogue between diplomats, politicians and decision-makers than occurred between other countries.
Senator Arbib is one of many Australian politicians who attend the leadership dialogue, an annual bipartisan forum of leaders from government, business and the media from both countries who engage in frank discussions on the bilateral relationship under Chatham House rules.
The leaked US cables said Senator Arbib was “an influential factional operator” who “has met with us repeatedly throughout his political rise”.
Strategic analyst Hugh White said Senator Arbib had not done anything wrong in speaking frankly to the Americans about Labor Party issues.
“The standard we should apply here is whether he has said anything which damages Australia’s national interests,” Mr White said. “I don’t think it does any harm for the private machinations of the Labor Party to be shared. Lots of politicians have been doing the same thing for years. These are not matters of national security.”
Left-wing journalist and author John Bilker said the revelations about Senator Arbib’s links with the Americans raised questions about whether the US government played a role in the deposing of Mr Rudd as prime minister, given that Senator Arbib was an architect of Mr Rudd’s demise.
He said the US might have been unhappy with Mr Rudd because he appeared ambivalent about Australia’s continued military involvement in Afghanistan.
One senior Labor figure, who asked not to be named, said that although Senator Arbib had not broken any rules in talking about party affairs with US diplomats, he would be ostracised by many within the Labor movement because of his activities.
A former Australian Secret Intelligence Service agent, Warren Reed, said the nature of Senator Arbib’s links with the US embassy and its staff should be explored more closely.
“If the Americans are referring to Mr Arbib as a ‘protected source’ then they clearly believe he is of value to them,” Mr Reed said.
Greens leader Bob Brown said he would not be surprised if conversations he had had with US officials were the subject of secret embassy cables.
“I regularly . . . get asked to meet the US ambassador and indeed a few other ambassadors from countries around the world,” Senator Brown said. “I’m always very careful about that, because you know the information is going back to the home capital, whether it is Beijing or Washington or Wellington, or wherever.
“I think it’s good that this (the Arbib cables) has seen the light of day. We all have to answer as elected members of parliament for any information we’re giving to foreign embassies.”
A researcher at the University of Luxembourg has demonstrated a new type of attack against mobile phones at the security conference DeepSec in Vienna.
Using a base transceiver station – widely available for around $1,000 – he showed how common programming errors in cellphones’ communication stack can be exploited to gain control over the devices.
Ralf-Philipp Weinmann says he found ‘devastating’ flaws in a large percentage of cellular communication stacks. He says anyone sufficiently motivated would be able to exploit these to make an attacks – which would be almost undetectable.
The exploit would allow hackers to take over control of mobile phones anywhere within the range of the rogue transceiver – which Weinmann points out could mean hundreds of phones at a time in crowded urban areas.
They could then start racking up the cash by either dialling premium numbers or sending text messages to premium services.
Hackers could also use the technique to monitor the user’s complete communications, and could even eavesdrop on the owner by instructing the cellphone to pick up incoming calls automatically – without the user noticing.
The attacking transceiver needs to be online for just a couple of seconds to perform the attack.
Weinmann says he is working with a number of unnamed vendors of both cellular communication chips and cellphones to fix the security flaws and prevent similar problems in future.
A couple cannot agree what color to paint the kitchen. Two cubicle-mates are arguing over a radio station. A teenager wants a later curfew, but mom and dad say no.
Neither side wants to give in. What now?
Two local entrepreneurs have the answer: let the court of popular opinion make the call.
Kevin Wielgus of Carol Stream and Angelo Rago of DesPlaines, both 36, are the co-founders of JabberJury, an online community that allows users to air and settle conflicts using a jury of their peers and the world at large.
Unlike real court proceedings, JabberJuryâs resolution process is designed to be fun.
âItâs human nature to eavesdrop on the couple arguing one table over at a restaurant,â Rago said. âEvery good story has a hero, a villain and a conflict. And we all have an opinion.â
Parties who want to strengthen their case can invite witnesses and submit evidence, just like in a real trial. JabberJurors can use all this support to better decide who they think is right or wrong.
Users who post a case and win or vote for a side and win or even invite friends to become JabberJurors can earn Jabbies, a virtual online currency, which can be redeemed for prizes.
Participants also can choose to donate their winnings to various charities.
Wielgus and Rago came up with the idea for JabberJury one night after Rago had an argument with his former girlfriend, which Wielgus and his wife witnessed.
Ragoâs girlfriend began sending him numerous text messages, criticizing his behavior.
Rago was frustrated, figuring she was telling her friends about the situation and they were unfairly passing judgment on him.
âAngelo said, âI bet if we ask everybody in this bar theyâd agree Iâm right if they heard both sides of the story,ââ Wielgus recalls. âHe said, âThere has to be a way to ask everybody.ââ
Both Wielgus and Rago, friends since 2002, realized with the rise of social media there was a way.
âIt went on from there,â Wielgus said. âAngelo and I talked more in the next two weeks than we did in the last two years.â
The duo hope the site will be fully up and running in the next few weeks.
âHopefully in time for all of your Christmas arguments,â Wielgus said.
