Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-08-2012, 12:48 PM   #1
waggy
No Lifer
 
waggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 64,379
Default Federal appeals court bans enforcement of Illinois eavesdropping law

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2406008.story

A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled today that Illinois’ eavesdropping law “likely violates” the First Amendment and ordered that authorities be banned from enforcing it.

The ruling from the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago is the strongest blow yet to the law, which is one of the strictest in the country and makes it illegal for people to audio record police officers in public without their consent.

/snip


WOOOO!

IT never should be against the law to tape a officer on the street or a private home.

I am happy to have this ruling.
waggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 01:13 PM   #2
cybrsage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,021
Default

It comes down to the reasonable expectation of privacy. You cannot record their phone calls, even if you do this from a distance and at a public phone booth...but you can record their traffic stop. No one can reasonably expect the traffic stop to be a private thing - with the flashing lights and all.
cybrsage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 01:23 PM   #3
Moonbeam
Elite Member
 
Moonbeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 52,680
Default

Damn, the decision will be overruled 5 to 4.
__________________
The above is probably just my usual sarcasm and in no way reflects my real opinion (and,or) may include subtleties of sufficient rarity as to appear to the unsuspecting like total gibberish. It may not be so much a matter that I'm far out, but rather that you have never been anywhere.
Moonbeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 01:31 PM   #4
JEDIYoda
Lifer
 
JEDIYoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Israeli side
Posts: 21,378
Default

I`m sorry I didn`t mean to eavesdrop on this thread.......
__________________
JohnOfSheffield -- That said, Palestine will exist when they understand that Israel exists, it's that blatantly simple!
JEDIYoda is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 01:33 PM   #5
PokerGuy
Diamond Member
 
PokerGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,947
Default

Good ruling. I have great respect for the police and the job they do, but as part of that job they have a lot of power. When any position with a lot of power is left unchecked, abuse is bound to occur frequently. Easy recording of video and audio is an easy check on some of that power, and I don't see how it interferes with any legitimate need or job of the LEO.
PokerGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 01:59 PM   #6
Jaskalas
Lifer
 
Jaskalas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 18,385
Default

I approve of this ruling.
__________________
"because... you know... the Cold War has been over for 20 years."
-President Obama, 2012 debate.
Jaskalas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 02:20 PM   #7
dmcowen674
No Lifer
 
dmcowen674's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 54,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waggy View Post
Federal appeals court bans enforcement of Illinois eavesdropping law

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2406008.story

A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled today that Illinois’ eavesdropping law “likely violates” the First Amendment and ordered that authorities be banned from enforcing it.

The ruling from the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago is the strongest blow yet to the law, which is one of the strictest in the country and makes it illegal for people to audio record police officers in public without their consent.

/snip


WOOOO!

IT never should be against the law to tape a officer on the street or a private home.

I am happy to have this ruling.
Just in time for the NATO summit.

They were planning on rounding up everyone recording with their cell phones etc and putting them in an abandoned jail in Joliet that doesn't even have running water or electricity.

I haven't seen an alternative so they still must be planning on shipping everyone they round up there.

PS

This ruling comes a day after the Boston guy got $170,000 in the case in Massachusetts where he filed civil suit for false arrest and won for recording officers.
__________________
The Gas Industry system is backwards. Instead of getting rewarded for incompetence they should be forced to lower the price thus getting lower profits while they are being incompetent.
How the Middle Class Got Screwed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB7jdjsFErM
dmcowen674 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 02:24 PM   #8
waggy
No Lifer
 
waggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 64,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674 View Post
Just in time for the NATO summit.

They were planning on rounding up everyone recording with their cell phones etc and putting them in an abandoned jail in Joliet that doesn't even have running water or electricity.

I haven't seen an alternative so they still must be planning on shipping everyone they round up there.

PS

This ruling comes a day after the Boston guy got $170,000 in the case in Massachusetts where he filed civil suit for false arrest and won for recording officers.
BS.

IN fact they were suspending the wiretapping law FOR nato.

Also Lawmakers in IL were trying to pass a law making it legal to tape police. There have been a few people arrested over it and found not guilty and suing and winning.

IT should NEVER be against the law to tape a police officer (unless undercover). I hope this does not get overturned.
waggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 02:47 PM   #9
Texashiker
Lifer
 
Texashiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SouthEast Texas
Posts: 17,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post
It comes down to the reasonable expectation of privacy.
No it does not.

It comes down to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

The people have the right to know what the government is doing.
Texashiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 04:13 PM   #10
Moonbeam
Elite Member
 
Moonbeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 52,680
Default

I just want to add, since folk seem to want to agree on things, that I don't like government wasting money.
__________________
The above is probably just my usual sarcasm and in no way reflects my real opinion (and,or) may include subtleties of sufficient rarity as to appear to the unsuspecting like total gibberish. It may not be so much a matter that I'm far out, but rather that you have never been anywhere.
Moonbeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 04:15 PM   #11
monovillage
Diamond Member
 
monovillage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: N. California
Posts: 8,445
Default

This ruling by the 7th Circuit Court has my stamp of rightie approval.
monovillage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 04:21 PM   #12
alzan
Diamond Member
 
alzan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Third planet in our solar system
Posts: 3,430
Thumbs up

It's about time!

If this does not get overturned it could be used as a model law for other states which either do not have this legislation in place or who don't allow audio taping of LEO's by citizens who have been stopped.

Law enforcement officials in most situations are professional and not looking to trip up an unsuspecting citizen or a citizen who is not fully aware of their rights. Laws like this will help rid the municipalities and states of LEO's who "push the envelope" just to get an arrest or more ticket fines for their PD or town council.
__________________
"My doctor informs me that I have a malformed public duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore excused from saving the Universe." - Douglas Adams

Quitters always lose.
alzan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 04:47 PM   #13
Texashiker
Lifer
 
Texashiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SouthEast Texas
Posts: 17,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alzan View Post
If this does not get overturned it could be used as a model law for other states which either do not have this legislation in place or who don't allow audio taping of LEO's by citizens who have been stopped.
A similar law has already been overturned in maryland.
Texashiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 04:47 PM   #14
hal2kilo
Diamond Member
 
hal2kilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 4,449
Default

Wow, a real win for real peoples first amendment rights.
__________________
I'm a liberal because I'm a realist.

Go Mariners!

Love my new Grande Cherokee Eco-Diesel
hal2kilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 05:16 PM   #15
Sunburn74
Senior Member
 
Sunburn74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MA
Posts: 773
Default

Nice. This law made me absolutely irate when it was passed. BTW, what exactly was the process leading to its repeal? Was it a grass roots movement? Or politicians in government finally getting their heads out of their asses and seeing the light?
Sunburn74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 05:37 PM   #16
monovillage
Diamond Member
 
monovillage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: N. California
Posts: 8,445
Default

You know this law has to suck ass and be a real nasty law to have so many people of such diverse views hate it.
monovillage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 06:44 PM   #17
Wreckem
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texashiker View Post
A similar law has already been overturned in maryland.
Every state that has had a law like this has been tossed by state courts. The lone exception to that was Illinois. Now it looks likes the law in Illinois is going to get tossed by the Feds.

The only states that had these laws were two party consent states, and only Illinois ever made it explicitly illegal. The rest were very liberal interpretations of the two party consent statutes by overzealous police/da's which were thankfully struck down State Supreme Courts.

Last edited by Wreckem; 05-08-2012 at 06:51 PM.
Wreckem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 06:50 PM   #18
Wreckem
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alzan View Post
It's about time!

If this does not get overturned it could be used as a model law for other states which either do not have this legislation in place or who don't allow audio taping of LEO's by citizens who have been stopped.

Law enforcement officials in most situations are professional and not looking to trip up an unsuspecting citizen or a citizen who is not fully aware of their rights. Laws like this will help rid the municipalities and states of LEO's who "push the envelope" just to get an arrest or more ticket fines for their PD or town council.
It would never have been a model law in the overwhelming majority of other states. These laws sprung up from two party consent statutes in the handful of two party consent states that are left. The rest of the two party consent states have already solved this issue.
Wreckem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 07:31 PM   #19
Craig234
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 32,832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunburn74 View Post
Nice. This law made me absolutely irate when it was passed. BTW, what exactly was the process leading to its repeal? Was it a grass roots movement? Or politicians in government finally getting their heads out of their asses and seeing the light?
It says in the linked story you can thank the ACLU.

Who here has donated to them?

I have a question, though: which party introduced the law and how did each party vote?
Craig234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 07:32 PM   #20
Craig234
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 32,832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
I just want to add, since folk seem to want to agree on things, that I don't like government wasting money.
I do.

I prefer they burn it, as long as the smoke is not allowed in the atmosphere.
Craig234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 07:35 PM   #21
piasabird
Lifer
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,149
Default

The people in Illinois think they know better than the US Constitution.
__________________
Asus Memo Pad 7 HD. Quad Core Tablet.
piasabird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 09:52 PM   #22
cybrsage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texashiker View Post
No it does not.

It comes down to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

The people have the right to know what the government is doing.
Your everyday person is not the press. The courts have ruled on this long ago, and more recently in saying a Blog is not "the press" for protection purposes.

If you are specifically talking about the press, then yes, but since this is aimed at your common person who records a traffic stop, then no.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to record what others are doing...so that one does not apply.


So it goes back to the reasonable expectation of privacy. This is why you can be filmed walking through a public park without being able to stop the person from filming you. If they are following you around, sure, but if they are filiming the park and you happen by, then no. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public park.
cybrsage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 10:06 PM   #23
cybrsage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,021
Default

Is this what they are talking about?


Quote:
(720 ILCS 5/14-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 14-2)
Sec. 14-2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:
(1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 108A or Article 108B of the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended; or

(720 ILCS 5/14-3)
Sec. 14-3. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article:

(h) Recordings made simultaneously with the use of an in-car video camera recording of an oral conversation between a uniformed peace officer, who has identified his or her office, and a person in the presence of the peace officer whenever (i) an officer assigned a patrol vehicle is conducting an enforcement stop; or (ii) patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated or would otherwise be activated if not for the need to conceal the presence of law enforcement.
For the purposes of this subsection (h), "enforcement stop" means an action by a law enforcement officer in relation to enforcement and investigation duties, including but not limited to, traffic stops, pedestrian stops, abandoned vehicle contacts, motorist assists, commercial motor vehicle stops, roadside safety checks, requests for identification, or responses to requests for emergency assistance;
(h-5) Recordings of utterances made by a person while in the presence of a uniformed peace officer and while an occupant of a police vehicle including, but not limited to, (i) recordings made simultaneously with the use of an in-car video camera and (ii) recordings made in the presence of the peace officer utilizing video or audio systems, or both, authorized by the law enforcement agency;
(h-10) Recordings made simultaneously with a video camera recording during the use of a taser or similar weapon or device by a peace officer if the weapon or device is equipped with such camera;
(h-15) Recordings made under subsection (h), (h-5), or (h-10) shall be retained by the law enforcement agency that employs the peace officer who made the recordings for a storage period of 90 days, unless the recordings are made as a part of an arrest or the recordings are deemed evidence in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding and then the recordings must only be destroyed upon a final disposition and an order from the court. Under no circumstances shall any recording be altered or erased prior to the expiration of the designated storage period. Upon completion of the storage period, the recording medium may be erased and reissued for operational use;
Reading this, it appears that if you have an in-car camera, you can use it to record the police during a routine traffic stop. I could have the wrong law, though.
cybrsage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 12:28 PM   #24
xeemzor
Platinum Member
 
xeemzor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: columbus
Posts: 2,196
Default

It's great that this law was overturned. Especially after HB3944, a bill that would allow the recording of police officers, was defeated in the state house 45-59. I'm still amazed that state reps voted for a law that pretty much every court has declared unconstitutional.
xeemzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.