4 ms·

Hold on, wait for me! I have to get my pitchfork. Okay. Reading now... Sigh, I'm putting my pitchfork back, false alarm. The old law got struck down [1] bec

Hold on, wait for me! I have to get my pitchfork. Okay. Reading now... Sigh, I'm putting my pitchfork back, false alarm. The old law got struck down [1] because the Constitution. The new one stipulates that it's only illegal in situations where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy [2]. Damn it, I can't get offended about this. [1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-26/news/chi-supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-prohibit-taping-of-police-20121126_1_cook-and-crawford-counties-police-officers-enforcement http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-26/news/chi-supre... [2] http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/state-eavesdropping-law-fix-head-governors-desk/thu-12042014-1251pm http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/state-eaves...

sehugg 12y ago
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/08/new-illinois-eavesdropping-act-still-see http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/08/new-illinois-eavesdropping... ... the eavesdropping bill retains another odious aspect of the old law: It punishes unauthorized recordings of public officials—specifically, police officers, prosecutors, and judges—more severely than unauthorized recordings of ordinary citizens. The former would be a Class 3 felony, punishable by two to four years in prison, while the latter would be a Class 4 felony, punishable by one to three years in prison. If anything, that is the opposite of the distinction the law should draw, since public officials, given the power they wield, should be subject to greater scrutiny than private citizens.
- mullingitover 12y ago
  Hmm, good point. I can at least get out some rotten fruit for this.
leeoniya 12y ago
"reasonable expectation of privacy" from whose perspective? if my spouse/gf/friends film my arrest in my own garage (without my objection, maybe even with my insistence), are they now subject to arrest?
- mistercow 12y ago
  There's a decent amount of precedent around what "reasonable expectation of privacy" means.
  - parfe 12y ago
    Which is a fine argument to make once you've been run through the justice system and finally get to face a judge. But giving a tool to for officers to use while making an arrest, confiscating footage, and passing the case to prosecutors to file charges is not OK. Even if you think the trial judge, or worse, an appeals judge will rule on precedent. This law is meant as a cudgel to abuse the public.
    - WhatRights 12y ago
      You may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Is that true regarding police officers?
- balabaster 12y ago
  If you make a scene, rousing the interest of the neighbors and other such passers by, does it then become public?
jostmey 12y ago
Ha! That won't stop the great city of Chicago from arresting you and throwing you in the slammer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/01/woman-jailed-two-weeks-for-recording-chicago-p-d-s-internal-affairs-officers-can-sue-for-a-fourth-amendment-violation/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm294TYqh6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm294TYqh6o ... And there are plenty more stories where that came from.
- tptacek 12y ago
  The former story, about Tiawanda Moore, concerns someone who was acquitted ~4 years ago, and is now (justifiably!) suing the city. The latter concerns someone who was not arrested.
- balabaster 12y ago
  You could surely get around this by announcing loudly to the cop prior to every interaction that this is a public situation and there is no privacy to be found here... as proven by the existence of this camera crew and microphone.
  - rewind 12y ago
    Tell that to the 98% of people who will "surely" have never heard of this and think, reasonably, that recording a cop won't put them in jail.
    - wavefunction 12y ago
      Why would we tell the 2% that already know they can film the police? :P Of course we want to tell the 98% they are free to film as well! But I take your point.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
legohead 12y ago
in this day and age, I don't expect privacy, ever.. with the NSA recording everything and forcing companies to comply, how do I even know if my cell phone isn't actively listening in on me?
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  I would love to make this argument. The federal government has already made it so that there is no expectation of privacy anywhere. RF, wired, optical networks are monitored and recorded, CCTVs and IPTVs by private, public, and government organizations/individuals are ubiquitous and many many people carry around devices that can record audio/video from multiple sources within a second of activation. Some of those devices are already passively recording and listening to everything (eg. Google Now enabled devices).
Bluestrike2 12y ago
You're right, but that caveat alone still serves to muddy the waters. Just forcing people to have to think about whether they can record police interactions serves to discourage recordings for fear of the consequences. If Illinois police forces can't have a blanket eavesdropping ban to bash people over the head with, well, this is certainly the next best thing.
vacri 12y ago
You have an appropriate handle for such a comment...

sehugg 12y ago

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/08/new-illinois-eavesdropping-act-still-see http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/08/new-illinois-eavesdropping... ... the eavesdropping bill retains another odious aspect of the old law: It punishes unauthorized recordings of public officials—specifically, police officers, prosecutors, and judges—more severely than unauthorized recordings of ordinary citizens. The former would be a Class 3 felony, punishable by two to four years in prison, while the latter would be a Class 4 felony, punishable by one to three years in prison. If anything, that is the opposite of the distinction the law should draw, since public officials, given the power they wield, should be subject to greater scrutiny than private citizens.

mullingitover 12y ago
Hmm, good point. I can at least get out some rotten fruit for this.

leeoniya 12y ago

"reasonable expectation of privacy" from whose perspective? if my spouse/gf/friends film my arrest in my own garage (without my objection, maybe even with my insistence), are they now subject to arrest?

mistercow 12y ago
There's a decent amount of precedent around what "reasonable expectation of privacy" means.
- parfe 12y ago
  Which is a fine argument to make once you've been run through the justice system and finally get to face a judge. But giving a tool to for officers to use while making an arrest, confiscating footage, and passing the case to prosecutors to file charges is not OK. Even if you think the trial judge, or worse, an appeals judge will rule on precedent. This law is meant as a cudgel to abuse the public.
  - WhatRights 12y ago
    You may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.
- baddox 12y ago
  Is that true regarding police officers?
balabaster 12y ago
If you make a scene, rousing the interest of the neighbors and other such passers by, does it then become public?

jostmey 12y ago

Ha! That won't stop the great city of Chicago from arresting you and throwing you in the slammer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/01/woman-jailed-two-weeks-for-recording-chicago-p-d-s-internal-affairs-officers-can-sue-for-a-fourth-amendment-violation/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm294TYqh6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm294TYqh6o ... And there are plenty more stories where that came from.

tptacek 12y ago
The former story, about Tiawanda Moore, concerns someone who was acquitted ~4 years ago, and is now (justifiably!) suing the city. The latter concerns someone who was not arrested.
balabaster 12y ago
You could surely get around this by announcing loudly to the cop prior to every interaction that this is a public situation and there is no privacy to be found here... as proven by the existence of this camera crew and microphone.
- rewind 12y ago
  Tell that to the 98% of people who will "surely" have never heard of this and think, reasonably, that recording a cop won't put them in jail.
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    Why would we tell the 2% that already know they can film the police? :P Of course we want to tell the 98% they are free to film as well! But I take your point.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

legohead 12y ago

in this day and age, I don't expect privacy, ever.. with the NSA recording everything and forcing companies to comply, how do I even know if my cell phone isn't actively listening in on me?

jsprogrammer 12y ago
I would love to make this argument. The federal government has already made it so that there is no expectation of privacy anywhere. RF, wired, optical networks are monitored and recorded, CCTVs and IPTVs by private, public, and government organizations/individuals are ubiquitous and many many people carry around devices that can record audio/video from multiple sources within a second of activation. Some of those devices are already passively recording and listening to everything (eg. Google Now enabled devices).

Bluestrike2 12y ago

You're right, but that caveat alone still serves to muddy the waters. Just forcing people to have to think about whether they can record police interactions serves to discourage recordings for fear of the consequences. If Illinois police forces can't have a blanket eavesdropping ban to bash people over the head with, well, this is certainly the next best thing.

vacri 12y ago

You have an appropriate handle for such a comment...