Showing posts with label sousveillance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sousveillance. Show all posts

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Follow up on the No Video-recording Police in IL law

Still looking for the origins of this law; it appears to have been an older one, related to wiretapping.  That throws into question when and by which party or parties this legislation was passed, and even more so, did it ever intend to refer to this kind of use, since it appears to predate our modern technology.

Even more interesting in this context, since MN is a state which requires both parties to be aware of recording taking place, and it was my understanding this applied only to private conversations, 2 questions come to mind.  One, is it sufficient as is the case with customer service calls, simply to announce that one is recording, rather than actually ASKING permission? Second, does this apply to a public place or not? Because it was my understanding that wiretapping or other violations of privacy could only occur where there was an expectation of privacy, and did NOT apply to public places.

So there appear to be quite a lot of potential challenges to enforcing this kind of law when it applies to public places and police.


Here is just one of the articles I have been finding on this topic:

Video: Illinois Man Faces Life in Jail for Recording Police in Public

Share This Story

article image
41-year old Bridgeport, Illinois mechanic Michael Allison is facing possible life in jail for recording police officers via some archaic state eavesdropping charges (see video below). The state of Illinois is trying to charge Allison with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison for each count.

Allison says that he recorded officers while they confiscated a car on his mother’s property.  He also went to the police station with his recorder to speak to the chief of police about the seized property. Finally, when he was denied a court reporter in a court hearing, he recorded the proceedings himself and was arrested.


Allison syas that he refused a plea deal, which would have seen him serve no jail time, but would reinforce the statute that it is illegal to film police officers: “If we don’t fight for our freedoms here at home we’re all going to lose them.”

A judge is expected to rule on when the case will go to trial over the next two weeks.

This type of charge has been done before in different states, but charges have been dropped and the case thrown out of court.  In Illinois, eavesdropping charges against Tiawanda Moore for recording patrol officers were dropped, after a jury quickly repudiated the prosecution’s case, taking less than an hour to acquit Moore on both eavesdropping counts.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Do Laws Against Video Recording of Public Servants Like Police Violate Our Rights

I enjoy adding new concepts and new knowledge to what I know. My background in French prompts me to want to scream that the second 's' in sousveillance, 'sous', pronounced like the given name Sue, being the opposite of the French 'sur' for above or over. But far more significant, and something that was otherwise below my personal radar was the notion that we cannot, in some places, preserve a record of events involving authority.

I had always been taught that you could legally and properly video anyone in a public place for personal use. That rule of thumb is clearly changing, but I doubt most of us have been aware of that change.  I believe this is a change we should all oppose.

The events in Arab spring were in large part triggered by this kind of video going viral, beginning with the social media.  It has also been a huge part of the response which grew the Occupy Wall Street protests from a few people to so many, after the videotaping of what many consider a police abuse of power.

Arguably our holding our authority organizations, and we might add to that would-be authorities, like political candidates making speeches to otherwise private gatherings, would be examples of very useful and necessary and important use of this technology.

I would even go so far as to advocate that the use of this technology is MORE important to our citizens being free in this country than firearms are. (Hey, I felt I had to get the tie in to our usual topic somehow, and this seemed a legitimate observation.)

What say you, readers?

From the Dylan Ratigan show, MSNBC.com: