http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us/23cnceavesdropping.html?_r=1
QuoteChristopher Drew is a 60-year-old artist and teacher who wears a gray ponytail and lives on the North Side. Tiawanda Moore, 20, a former stripper, lives on the South Side and dreams of going back to school and starting a new life.
About the only thing these strangers have in common is the prospect that by spring, they could each be sent to prison for up to 15 years.
"That's one step below attempted murder," Mr. Drew said of their potential sentences.
The crime they are accused of is eavesdropping.
The authorities say that Mr. Drew and Ms. Moore audio-recorded their separate nonviolent encounters with Chicago police officers without the officers' permission, a Class 1 felony in Illinois, which, along with Massachusetts and Oregon, has one of the country's toughest, if rarely prosecuted, eavesdropping laws.
"Before they arrested me for it," Ms. Moore said, "I didn't even know there was a law about eavesdropping. I wasn't trying to sue anybody. I just wanted somebody to know what had happened to me."
Ms. Moore, whose trial is scheduled for Feb. 7 in Cook County Criminal Court, is accused of using her Blackberry to record two Internal Affairs investigators who spoke to her inside Police Headquarters while she filed a sexual harassment complaint last August against another police officer. Mr. Drew was charged with using a digital recorder to capture his Dec. 2, 2009, arrest for selling art without a permit on North State Street in the Loop. Mr. Drew said his trial date was April 4.
Both cases illustrate the increasingly busy and confusing intersection of technology and the law, public space and private.
"Our society is going through a technological transformation," said Adam Schwartz, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which last August challenged the Illinois Eavesdropping Act in federal court. "We are at a time where tens of millions of Americans carry around a telephone or other device in their pocket that has an audio-video capacity. Ten years ago, Americans weren't walking around with all these devices."
He said that when "something fishy seems to be going on, the perfectly natural and healthy and good thing is for them to pull that device out and make a recording."
The Illinois Eavesdropping Act has been on the books for years. It makes it a criminal offense to audio-record either private or public conversations without the consent of all parties, Mr. Schwartz said. Audio-recording a civilian without consent is a Class 4 felony, punishable by up to three years in prison for a first-time offense. A second offense is a Class 3 felony with a possible prison term of five years.
Although law-enforcement officials can legally record civilians in private or public, audio-recording a law-enforcement officer, state's attorney, assistant state's attorney, attorney general, assistant attorney general or judge in the performance of his or her duties is a Class 1 felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
The A.C.L.U. filed its lawsuit after several people throughout Illinois were charged in recent years with eavesdropping for making audio recordings of public conversations with the police. The A.C.L.U. argued that the act violates the First Amendment and hinders citizens from monitoring the public behavior of police officers and other officials.
On Jan. 10, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the suit for the second time. Mr. Schwartz said the A.C.L.U. would appeal. Andrew Conklin, a spokesman for Anita Alvarez, the Cook County state's attorney, said, "We did feel the A.C.L.U.'s claims were baseless and we're glad the court agreed with us." Beyond that statement, Mr. Conklin said, "we have no comment because we have these two cases pending."
Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization "absolutely supports" the eavesdropping act as is and was relieved that the challenge had failed. Mr. Donahue added that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty "can affect how an officer does his job on the street."
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 25, 2011, 07:26:22 AM
QuoteMr. Donahue added that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty "can affect how an officer does his job on the street."
He has a point, you know. Allowing public recordings of police officers count introduce dangerous elements of accountability into law enforcement.
I think it's fairly horrific that law enforcement can record citizens with or without their knowledge, and examine private interactions such as text and email messages without a warrant, but it's illegal for citizens to record law enforcement officers in their course of duty.
Well this guy will certainly be more careful when he gets filmed interacting with a Police Officer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWNE54RJIL4&feature=related
Quote from: Nigel on January 25, 2011, 09:05:00 AM
I think it's fairly horrific that law enforcement can record citizens with or without their knowledge, and examine private interactions such as text and email messages without a warrant, but it's illegal for citizens to record law enforcement officers in their course of duty.
IF YEW DIDN'T HAVE NUTHIN TO HIDE YEW WOULDN'T BE SO GOT-DAMNED CONSERNED ABOUT YER PRIVACY!
\
:redneck2:
/
STOOPID NAZI NAG JEW SOCIALITE.
Quote from: Nigel on January 25, 2011, 09:05:00 AM
I think it's fairly horrific that law enforcement can record citizens with or without their knowledge, and examine private interactions such as text and email messages without a warrant, but it's illegal for citizens to record law enforcement officers in their course of duty.
THIS. Though everything I've ever seen in this particular "civil rights" arena points to this being the default rather than the exception. The error is always made on this side. Always. So those who deal with cops on a longterm or on-going basis tend to not expect anything else.
Quote from: Remington on January 25, 2011, 07:34:34 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 25, 2011, 07:26:22 AM
QuoteMr. Donahue added that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty "can affect how an officer does his job on the street."
He has a point, you know. Allowing public recordings of police officers count introduce dangerous elements of accountability into law enforcement.
No fucking kidding. :horrormirth:
Will everyone who thinks they really have right please raise your hand.
Anyone?
No one?
Carry on then.
(http://i.imgur.com/hSu4S.jpg)
Some of you may recall the news item last summer in which some county in CA (?) started having their cops wear cameras which have to be switched on before they interact with somebody. Accountability and all that. I was talking to a cop a while back and he presented an interesting objection to higher surveillance on cops. He mentioned how cops will often "look the other way" - sometimes it's because they don't think the guy deserves the punishment, sometimes because they don't want to fill out the paper work. (he says that a DUI involves 11 hours of police work, most of which is paper work. As long as you didn't hit anybody, most cops in his city have better things to do)
He felt that if he was under constant surveillance, he'd be under pressure to be making a lot more asshole calls. If it came up in court that you gave a speeding ticket when you should have given a drug possession charge, you could lose your job.
...interesting. So, in keeping the cops honest, they would have to be honest about everything, including following the rules and busting you for something they would have given you a warning on.
Doesn't California explicitly allow cops to ignore violations of the law that don't fall under certain laws? Though I suppose that the department may not want the cops on the street making those decisions for themselves.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 26, 2011, 03:40:19 PM
Doesn't California explicitly allow cops to ignore violations of the law that don't fall under certain laws? Though I suppose that the department may not want the cops on the street making those decisions for themselves.
What CA "allows" and "doesn't allow" is rarely legislated. Most of it is quashed at the DA level before it reaches the courts, or is thrown out of courts by judges who are ELECTED and therefore subject to party politicking. WHO here thinks an elected judge is gonna wanna look "soft" on crime?
Yeah.
So what "CA ALLOWS" tends to be murky territory at best.
You elect judges? Not as in a vote of no confidence, but they have to campaign and everything?
Dear God.
YUP. In most counties, I believe.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 26, 2011, 04:28:25 PM
You elect judges? Not as in a vote of no confidence, but they have to campaign and everything?
Dear God.
CA is certainly not the only state to do so.
The more I hear about CA's political system, the more I wonder why people live there in the first place.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 26, 2011, 04:31:57 PM
The more I hear about CA's political system, the more I wonder why people live there in the first place.
:lulz: It's not as bad as all that, but it's probably no worse or better than most states. My dad got a good deal, actually, all told, considering the damned county he got arrested BY (not *in* by the way, Riverside DAs and cops came INTO downtown San Diego (what is that? like a 160mi roundtrip?) to get him). ~7 years seems fucking light at this point.
Quote from: Jenne on January 26, 2011, 04:37:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 26, 2011, 04:31:57 PM
The more I hear about CA's political system, the more I wonder why people live there in the first place.
:lulz: It's not as bad as all that, but it's probably no worse or better than most states. My dad got a good deal, actually, all told, considering the damned county he got arrested BY (not *in* by the way, Riverside DAs and cops came INTO downtown San Diego (what is that? like a 160mi roundtrip?) to get him). ~7 years seems fucking light at this point.
Different states have their good bits and bad bits. For example, California is the most democratic system in the United States. On the other hand though, it's the most democratic system in the United States.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 26, 2011, 04:41:42 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 26, 2011, 04:37:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 26, 2011, 04:31:57 PM
The more I hear about CA's political system, the more I wonder why people live there in the first place.
:lulz: It's not as bad as all that, but it's probably no worse or better than most states. My dad got a good deal, actually, all told, considering the damned county he got arrested BY (not *in* by the way, Riverside DAs and cops came INTO downtown San Diego (what is that? like a 160mi roundtrip?) to get him). ~7 years seems fucking light at this point.
Different states have their good bits and bad bits. For example, California is the most democratic system in the United States. On the other hand though, it's the most democratic system in the United States.
But we're also a small country in size and population. We have an enormous amount of ESL students, more than any other state, and we also have a very variegated economy. We have to be RUN like a small country--something that baffles others who've never been here.
There's also a strange mixture of right-wing local politics with left-wing state/federal politics. It creates confusion instead of harmony for many.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 26, 2011, 04:29:42 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 26, 2011, 04:28:25 PM
You elect judges? Not as in a vote of no confidence, but they have to campaign and everything?
Dear God.
CA is certainly not the only state to do so.
We elect judges here in NC also. They are supposedly "nonpartisan" elections, but the local political parties always hand out voter guides that list which judges have the correct values.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 26, 2011, 03:36:33 PM
Some of you may recall the news item last summer in which some county in CA (?) started having their cops wear cameras which have to be switched on before they interact with somebody. Accountability and all that. I was talking to a cop a while back and he presented an interesting objection to higher surveillance on cops. He mentioned how cops will often "look the other way" - sometimes it's because they don't think the guy deserves the punishment, sometimes because they don't want to fill out the paper work. (he says that a DUI involves 11 hours of police work, most of which is paper work. As long as you didn't hit anybody, most cops in his city have better things to do)
He felt that if he was under constant surveillance, he'd be under pressure to be making a lot more asshole calls. If it came up in court that you gave a speeding ticket when you should have given a drug possession charge, you could lose your job.
Funnily enough, I do remember that. It was a take that I certainly hadn't considered before, and our lot are camera equipped too. But the main thing I remember about it was, that this was an intelligent, articulate, and affable man speaking, and if you were his Boss, you would feel quite happy to let him go out every day, and make judgement calls like this. But compared to the average British Bobby, he was a towering giant of compassion, and intellect! I think we must grow our Police Force in some specially isolated Cave somewhere, on an Island well away from any nefarious influence that might socialise them, or make them think, or waken a scrap of Humanity in them. Not all of them, obviously, but a good 8 out of 10 of our lot, are thick as pigshit, and give nary a flaccid fuck about what they do. Follow proceedure like it was their only source of breath. You couldn't give Police like that, a job involving Judgement calls like this. It would be back to the bad old days of Black Squads, SPG Units, disappearing witnesses, fitting up the most likely candidate for christ knows what, custody deaths, and random beatings.In fact, it's getting a bit like that now, somebody heeeelp!
I'm no "Constitutional Scholar", but I do remember reading that the Government cannot delegate any powers to it's Agents that the population does not hold (individually and in association). This was specifically tested by the Supreme Court in the issue of Armed Militias, and it was decided that the Constitution can grant that right because each person had the individual rights to Bear Arms, and to Free Association.
Public officials also have no expectation of privacy WHEN ACTING IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
I did find a very interesting comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1902103) here:
QuoteThat's not true for police officers in two party notification states; I'm not sure whether this applies to private citizens or not.
In Illinois and other two party notification states, you can't record audio of police officers in public places [1]. Video is fine, but since all video cameras record audio, it's a bit of a Catch-22. People get arrested all the time in two party notification states for video taping law enforcement and it's because of the audio function of their device.
[1] http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez.pdf
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 26, 2011, 04:31:57 PM
The more I hear about CA's political system, the more I wonder why people live there in the first place.
It has a fucking kick ass climate. And will fucking all your Eastern States for a snack.
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on January 27, 2011, 03:43:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 26, 2011, 04:31:57 PM
The more I hear about CA's political system, the more I wonder why people live there in the first place.
It has a fucking kick ass climate. And will fucking all your Eastern States for a snack.
Because of yuor mighty King?
(http://i.imgur.com/o3tpQ.jpg)
Because, really, someone should have a word with him.
He GONE, BB. Gone baby gone.
Is now JERRY BROWN's turn to fuck shit up.
Woohoo!
I hope he's no relation to Gordon Brown, cuz on the "Let's fuck everything right up" scale of 1 to 10, he scored a remarkable 48. (But he probably cheated, so it could be higher than that)
None that I know of, but he DOES have a previous "record" with CA b/c he was governor here back in the 70's and 80's.
He must have got in on the "Nostalgia" vote then, from all the Electorate who would have retired by now, if they could afford to.
I swear the British public would put Margaret Thatcher back into No10, if she picked her moment properly.
Cameron eats puppy dog's dicks.
Jello Biafra wrote a song about it way back when. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlvUz6phquo
Policeman taking the piss. All over his Uniform.
Go to jail, and get a smackdown.
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/donotdothistothepolicep1.gif)
At least you can still record the TSA:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/25/passenger_acquitted/
Quote[The jury] returned not guilty verdicts for charges that included concealing his identity, refusing to obey a lawful order, trespassing, and disorderly conduct.
Papers, Please! says the acquittal proves what TSA critics have said all along: That checkpoint staff have no police powers, that contrary to TSA claims, passengers have the right to fly without providing ID, and yes, passengers are free to video record checkpoints as long as images on screening monitors aren't captured.
"Annoying the TSA is not a crime," the blog post states. "Photography is not a crime. You have the right to fly without ID, and to photograph, film, and record what happens."
...all that means is that they'll now put a law on the books stating that TSA get the same privileges that cops do. Because that's how America rolls.
"What? Someone has a civil right that comes up against our assumed jurisdiction? FUCK THAT. We can make a law! HAR HAR, take that motherfucker!"
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up when shit like this goes down.