Eavesdropping Law

[Nola_Lifer]

Eavesdropping Laws Mean That Turning On an Audio Recorder Could Send You to Prison



In Illinois, you can't film you own arrest. You have to make sure you get permission from police officers. What happens if they refuse?

[Swimmerdude99]

Thats messed up. What if a officer does something to a girl inapropriate and claims rape or sexual abuse... but if she tries to produce evidence she gets in trouble? :/ I don't like where this could possibly lead.

[Woodruff]

Eavesdropping Laws Mean That Turning On an Audio Recorder Could Send You to Prison

In Illinois, you can't film you own arrest. You have to make sure you get permission from police officers. What happens if they refuse?

See, this is what you don't understand...this is a very important law! Without this law, when the cop turns off his vehicle camera, he might get in trouble or something!

[phantomzero]

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.

Lol, who do you think wrote the law?

[Nola_Lifer]

Eavesdropping Laws Mean That Turning On an Audio Recorder Could Send You to Prison

In Illinois, you can't film you own arrest. You have to make sure you get permission from police officers. What happens if they refuse?

See, this is what you don't understand...this is a very important law! Without this law, when the cop turns off his vehicle camera, he might get in trouble or something!

Then why word it so that citizens can't film?

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.

Lol, who do you think wrote the law?

I think someone is on to something here.

[tkr4lf]

Haha, this is bullshit. We're coming closer and closer to a police state every day.

It's funny, I just watched V For Vendetta again tonight...why does this situation remind me of that movie?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Who actually supports such laws? I'm wondering what kind of person would support such a grossly abusive law?

-TG

[jonesthecurl]

Doesn't that make the TV news illegal?
Or do they always get the consent of every passer-by?

[Swimmerdude99]

Doesn't that make the TV news illegal?
Or do they always get the consent of every passer-by?

Thats a good point. It needs to spread across all areas or none at all.

[Woodruff]

Eavesdropping Laws Mean That Turning On an Audio Recorder Could Send You to Prison

In Illinois, you can't film you own arrest. You have to make sure you get permission from police officers. What happens if they refuse?

See, this is what you don't understand...this is a very important law! Without this law, when the cop turns off his vehicle camera, he might get in trouble or something!

Then why word it so that citizens can't film?

You seem to have overlooked my sarcasm...I must not have been clear enough with it. Sorry about that.

[Nola_Lifer]

Eavesdropping Laws Mean That Turning On an Audio Recorder Could Send You to Prison

In Illinois, you can't film you own arrest. You have to make sure you get permission from police officers. What happens if they refuse?

See, this is what you don't understand...this is a very important law! Without this law, when the cop turns off his vehicle camera, he might get in trouble or something!

Then why word it so that citizens can't film?

You seem to have overlooked my sarcasm...I must not have been clear enough with it. Sorry about that.

Throw me a wink or somethin!!!

[PLAYER57832]

Doesn't that make the TV news illegal?
Or do they always get the consent of every passer-by?

This applies only to police officers, not the general public.

As a practical point, police can tell media folks to leave/stop taping basically whenever they wish. Average people generally can only ask them to leave private property, not forbid taping from public areas. I HOPE this is seen as stepping to far, but fear it will be "justified".

This touches on something that actually does need to change. I don't think a passerby or Googleearth, for that matter, ought to be able to look down onto someone's private patio or hedged yard, never mind in someone's window. BUT..that would be an entirely different thread.

[Woodruff]

Who actually supports such laws? I'm wondering what kind of person would support such a grossly abusive law?

Law enforcement, of course. There is now serious discussion of 5,000 spy drones in American airspace within 5 years. For law enforcement, of course.

[tkr4lf]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

[PLAYER57832]

Who actually supports such laws? I'm wondering what kind of person would support such a grossly abusive law?

Law enforcement, of course. There is now serious discussion of 5,000 spy drones in American airspace within 5 years. For law enforcement, of course.

Yes, but also the bullies that control law enforcement and who are convinced they can use this to control the "errant population" while they themselves will remain insulated.

If you don't believe me, you have not been to many small town council meetings .

[Nola_Lifer]

Who actually supports such laws? I'm wondering what kind of person would support such a grossly abusive law?

Law enforcement, of course. There is now serious discussion of 5,000 spy drones in American airspace within 5 years. For law enforcement, of course.

I saw that. I thought drones were used in assassination attempts. What will they be used for? Speeding tickets? Spying in general?

[Woodruff]

Who actually supports such laws? I'm wondering what kind of person would support such a grossly abusive law?

Law enforcement, of course. There is now serious discussion of 5,000 spy drones in American airspace within 5 years. For law enforcement, of course.

I saw that. I thought drones were used in assassination attempts. What will they be used for? Speeding tickets? Spying in general?

Assassination attempts? (Don't look at me like that...I am serious.)

[BigBallinStalin]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Gee, that's a long time!

[jonesthecurl]

Doesn't that make the TV news illegal?
Or do they always get the consent of every passer-by?

This applies only to police officers, not the general public.

As a practical point, police can tell media folks to leave/stop taping basically whenever they wish. Average people generally can only ask them to leave private property, not forbid taping from public areas. I HOPE this is seen as stepping to far, but fear it will be "justified".

This touches on something that actually does need to change. I don't think a passerby or Googleearth, for that matter, ought to be able to look down onto someone's private patio or hedged yard, never mind in someone's window. BUT..that would be an entirely different thread.

Nope.

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.