Not only is this not news now, this isn't even original. This happened long ago as others have pointed out, but furthermore it was done with the iPhone 2G when it was broken by a similar exploit.

Serious prior use on this one. Would have to read this closer to make sure prior use exists, but I am pretty sure it does. In 2001, the owner of a company I contracted to requested that I track the location of a user's mouse every time it came to rest in order to improve the user experience on the website. It revealed some really interesting data that drove the design of the site. Furthermore, we started to use it to modify the search results based on user behavior. If someone hovered over a like sounding artist, but didn't click, we would compare that against what they ultimately selected and decide whether to display more of both or to eliminate the one they hovered over. Furthermore, that type of experience existed prior to then, as it wasn't even an original idea to the company's owner. He had picked it up from user experience testing when he worked at Microsoft in the 90s. Total prior use here, this should be denied.

Remind me, where is the wire? The point of the law was to prevent recording someone without their consent during a private communication where the other party would not be aware of the recording. These police officers are in public, where free speech is at its strongest, and where they can tell if someone is recording them. Furthermore, what harm did he do to the officers by recording them? It neither interferes with their job or hurts them. The only possible interference or harm is if the police are acting incorrectly, which will be seen on the tape. Meh.

You mean "activist judges" right? Because those would be the judges attributed with throwing out frivolous lawsuits and keeping major actions like environmental disasters which others throw out. /snark