3 ms·

There's no expectation of privacy in public area. I thought that has been pretty well established.

by ww520 15y ago

steve-howard 15y ago
There's no expectation of sanity in Illinois. I hate living here.
- ww520 15y ago
  Haha, but Illinois will set a precedent to lead the rest of the country in this case. Kudos to the judge.
  - steve-howard 15y ago
    I wish I could agree, but I doubt it. It's a matter of state law for one, and for another, " In this particular case, however, Judge Sacks seemed to declare Illinois' law unconstitutional not because it's a citizen's right to record interactions between the police and the public, but because the law was too far-reaching. " i.e. the judge is saying the law is unconstitutional not because the cops should be held accountable, but because it has the potential to criminalize almost any recording made in a public place. The article in the Sun-Times linked says the legislature is trying to fix the root problem, which is good. Pisses me off to see the police unions pushing back, even though it's to be expected.
  - bumbledraven 15y ago
    It's not a precedent. Illinois is the only state in the U.S. with a law this bad. http://www.pixiq.com/article/illinois-judge-latest-to-deem-wiretapping-law-unconstitutional http://www.pixiq.com/article/illinois-judge-latest-to-deem-w...
Lockyy 15y ago
Didn't the recent ruling on the FBI using gps trackers in cars disagree with that? I'm pretty sure the entire ruling was that despite being in public a person has a reasonable expectation of the privacy of where they are traveling and so to track them would require a warrant.
- rprasad 15y ago
  There is a difference between being in public and being followed. You have no expectation of not being seen while in public, but you do have a reasonable expectation not to be followed everywhere you go, including into presumably non-public (i.e,. privately-owned) properties. In the GPS case, the use of GPS trackers could include (and frequently did include) "following" a person into private property where the follower would not otherwise have permission to be, i.e.., the doctor's office, lawyer's office, etc.

There's no expectation of privacy in public area. I thought that has been pretty well established.

by ww520 15y ago

There's no expectation of privacy in public area. I thought that has been pretty well established.

steve-howard 15y ago

There's no expectation of sanity in Illinois. I hate living here.

ww520 15y ago
Haha, but Illinois will set a precedent to lead the rest of the country in this case. Kudos to the judge.
- steve-howard 15y ago
  I wish I could agree, but I doubt it. It's a matter of state law for one, and for another, " In this particular case, however, Judge Sacks seemed to declare Illinois' law unconstitutional not because it's a citizen's right to record interactions between the police and the public, but because the law was too far-reaching. " i.e. the judge is saying the law is unconstitutional not because the cops should be held accountable, but because it has the potential to criminalize almost any recording made in a public place. The article in the Sun-Times linked says the legislature is trying to fix the root problem, which is good. Pisses me off to see the police unions pushing back, even though it's to be expected.
- bumbledraven 15y ago
  It's not a precedent. Illinois is the only state in the U.S. with a law this bad. http://www.pixiq.com/article/illinois-judge-latest-to-deem-wiretapping-law-unconstitutional http://www.pixiq.com/article/illinois-judge-latest-to-deem-w...

Lockyy 15y ago

Didn't the recent ruling on the FBI using gps trackers in cars disagree with that? I'm pretty sure the entire ruling was that despite being in public a person has a reasonable expectation of the privacy of where they are traveling and so to track them would require a warrant.

rprasad 15y ago
There is a difference between being in public and being followed. You have no expectation of not being seen while in public, but you do have a reasonable expectation not to be followed everywhere you go, including into presumably non-public (i.e,. privately-owned) properties. In the GPS case, the use of GPS trackers could include (and frequently did include) "following" a person into private property where the follower would not otherwise have permission to be, i.e.., the doctor's office, lawyer's office, etc.