SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Illinois prosecutors have charged a 13-year-old student with felony eavesdropping for recording his conversation with two school administrators. Should he be found guilty and sentenced, a conviction could land him a minimum of one year in prison. According to TechDirt:
The [Illinois] law forbids recordings without all parties' consent. It would seem that the school officials' refusal to discuss anything further once they were informed they were being recorded should have been enough. The conversation was ended, along with the recording. If they were concerned they said something they shouldn't have during the previous ten minutes, maybe should have restrained themselves during the argument, rather than ruin a 13-year-old's life with a bad law Illinois legislators refuse to rewrite. Given how often this law is used to protect the powerful, it's hardly surprising legislators haven't expressed a serious interest in fixing it.
Everyone from the administrators to the prosecutors and those in between had a lot of discretion available to stop the chain of events, but all chose not to stop it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 02 2018, @04:19PM (13 children)
Someone needs to ask the court if every single bit of "recordings" televised by the local news services has the consent of every individual recorded. If Obscure Television sets up to televise coverage outside of a court in a high profile case, and I drive by, then they need my full, informed consent in order to televise those moments while I am visible.
You'll get something in reply that sounds like, "Oh, but, discretion!"
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Monday July 02 2018, @04:24PM
As small low-life sheeple you will not accomplish anything and simply be laughed out of the courts with a huge bill. Such a case needs to be brought by the "powerful". But that is the catch dilemma, they don't because they benefit from the law. Nobody want to bring their privileged position in danger.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by sjames on Monday July 02 2018, @04:34PM (9 children)
Surely the prosecutors cannot be unaware that 3 courts have already found that the law is unconstitutional when the non-consenting party is a public official (such as a public school administrator) and they surely know that a 13 year old is a minor. Anything but immediately declining to prosecute is misconduct.
(Score: 4, Informative) by crafoo on Monday July 02 2018, @04:38PM
You say misconduct, they say keeping the uppity wage-slaves-in-training in their proper place. Make an example of the free thinkers not willing to grovel at the boots of authority. Everyone else learns a very valuable lesson.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @04:54PM (7 children)
Try reading your schools rules... No recording of staff or procedures on school grounds unless it's part of a class project.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Monday July 02 2018, @04:59PM
School rules are not a matter for criminal courts and prosecutors.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday July 02 2018, @05:00PM (5 children)
School policy is not law. They could expel a student for violating the rules, but that is separate from prosecutors charging the student with a felony.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @05:10PM (4 children)
Like clockboy?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday July 02 2018, @05:13PM
What's your point?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Captival on Monday July 02 2018, @11:35PM (1 child)
That little prick deserved it. Go look at the history of what he and his family have been up to since.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2018, @12:07AM
Lawsuits are an all-American pastime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07 2018, @12:08PM
That's Clockmed to you kaffir scum fear knowing that saying anything against the righteous could cost you 15 mill cold [thewashingtonstandard.com] so suck it up stop you lies [wnd.com] can not stop us from taking what our right hands possess
(Score: 3, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Monday July 02 2018, @05:08PM
Couple of things. There's a couple of things.
Something called the right of publicity. Hugo Zacchini, he was a human cannonball. And the television showed his performance without asking. Without permission. And it was worse than that, Zacchini talked to the so-called reporter. And said, don't film. Which, in those days they used a lot of film. Also tape. He said, don't do it. They did it. Got sued. And it went to our terrific Supreme Court. The station said, "oh, First Amendment! 14th Amendment!" SC told them "no."
And the other, false light. Part of the right of publicity. They make a "tape" of you, they do that VERY SPECIAL editing. I think you know what I mean. They make you look very foolish, you're not foolish, it's the editing. Like that VERY FAKE cover of Time magazine. With the fake picture of me with the little girl. They call it Photoshopping. I call it fake. Very hard for me to sue them, because I'm the President. I'd love to sue them, it's very tough for me to win that one. And my life is all about winning. But a regular guy, very easy to win in that situation. Depending on the state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @08:45PM
Nope. Wiretapping/eavesdropping laws only refer to audio recordings. If you didn't say anything during your drive by, then your consent isn't needed. And I suspect there are exemptions carved out for news services about consent for video recordings in public, which would be a different set of laws anyways.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Monday July 02 2018, @04:26PM (4 children)
If he was talking to almighty School Administrators, who are the highest authority and power in the nation, shouldn't the student show due respect, submission, subordinance, admiration and act like a well trained little drone as is reasonably expected from the public education system in most states?
What would he hope to accomplish by recording the conversation to prove what was actually said versus what the School Administrators said they said? You can't believe your lying ears when listening to such a recording.
Without proper social education, how will this student be able to interact with police the first time he is pulled over?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Tuesday July 03 2018, @05:27AM (3 children)
I do agree with you (and the majority of other commenters) that they (school, police, prosecutors, arguably lawmakers) are clearly over-reacting in allowing this to be a escalate to a 13 year old charged with a felony.
But on the other hand: If you go nothing to hide, then you got nothing to fear from being recorded? Really?
We all don't know, what the discussion was all about except "not showing up to detentions". But to help imagination, let's just suppose the original reason for detentions was some kind of bullying another student. Suppose during the conversation things get said like "you know what? I actually agree that student X is one big asshole, but that still does not make it right to [do whatever you did]." Maybe that would not be the most professional thing to say, but you don't have to be an evil lizard person to say such a thing in a confidential conversation and to really, really, not want an audio recording of you saying those words.
Or perhaps that kid got detention for chanting "evolution is just a theory", obnoxiously, and refusing to shut up during class. Then during his talk with school administrators, he tried to drag them into a discussion on creationism. Then, either he succeeded in dragging them to his level, or they downright refused to even talk about it. In either way, the recording - possibly with a bit of editing - would probably make some really good flamebait among the usual suspects.
Probably the student should be allowed to bring an adult witness / counsel to a conversation like this, if they wish to. But I do not think, audio recordings - secret or not - are something that should generally be allowed in this setting, as it would actually limit what can be said.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2018, @01:49PM
That's why superiors should always record their conversations with subordinates, in order to always be aware that everything they say stays on the record, and to behave in accordance with responsibility of their position.
As one over many, they must adhere to a stricter moral code then just any random person.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2018, @01:56PM
I disagree, I feel that all interactions with authority should be recorded precisely because it limits what can be said. There are few checks on authority, and recording them is one of the few that actually works at all.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 03 2018, @03:14PM
When you're in a public position of authority, sure. Seems like naming and shaming is about all we have left of accountability these days.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Monday July 02 2018, @04:35PM (5 children)
Adults not taking responsibility for their actions and accepting the consequences. Instead, deferring blame and punishment to someone who can't challenge it: another daily example. The more frequently punishment is doled out in accordance to social and economic power structure, and not in accordance to our ideals of justice, fairness, and common sense, the closer we are to the end of our civilization.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday July 02 2018, @04:39PM (2 children)
I'm constantly reminded of ancient Rome in its dying days....
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 02 2018, @04:44PM
That's great! Rome was Great in its dying daze! There were over 300 holidays and fewer than 65 working days.
(except for the worker bees, who don't count. And I don't mean inability to count due to educational system failure.)
Make America Great like Rome was great!
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday July 02 2018, @05:30PM
Sure you are. Because this is EXACTLY like that isn't it....
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Monday July 02 2018, @04:41PM
Just as it should be. These fine educators are teaching, by example, how he should act in order to be a responsible adult and understand his place in the world.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by Kawumpa on Tuesday July 03 2018, @06:13AM
Well, at least their teachings are not purely academic but instead thouroughly grounded in the everyday life experience of modern Americans,
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Monday July 02 2018, @04:53PM (5 children)
So what was this event over? What was the kid being reprimanded for? If Lindsay Shepherd's tapes taught us anything it is that school administrators will lie to make a point and attempt to ruin your entire career because of it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Informative) by Sulla on Monday July 02 2018, @04:55PM (4 children)
From tfa:
On Feb. 16, 2018, [Paul] Boron was called to the principal’s office at Manteno Middle School after failing to attend a number of detentions.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday July 02 2018, @05:28PM
Given the current behavior of the administration, it's no wonder the kid doesn't have much respect for them.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Monday July 02 2018, @05:56PM (2 children)
I rather suspect he had been to that principal's office before, and this time he thought he would get all the threats down in audio.
The fact that he was arguing for 10 minutes about refusing to show up for detention says this 13 year old already has little respect for authority.
(I know one phone call from the school to my father about EITHER arguing or skipping detention would have me double grounded for a month and apologizing personally, publicly, and sincerely to the principal and the detention monitor and having to face my dad's withering glare for weeks.)
OTOH:
The fact that the administrators decided to shut up and terminate the meeting, and then call the cops suggests they knew
they had already stepped over the line, and there would be actionable words on that recording.
So they charge the kid with a crime in order to prevent the recording being used in court.
The Police also get to seize the phone as evidence.
My guess is the charging wasn't done out of malice. It was done out of fear of the contents of the recording.
Prediction: The phone will be erased or destroyed in police custody. (And kid already has the recording in the cloud somewhere).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Monday July 02 2018, @06:50PM (1 child)
Given the way the administration has behaved here, perhaps they are the reason the kid doesn't respect their authority. Act like a jackass, get treated like a jackass. It may be that the administrator has also lost the respect of the parents for the same reason.
Were that not the case, we would probably not be reading the non-news non-story about a 13 year old getting suspended for persistent discipline problems.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 02 2018, @09:19PM
We certainly wouldn't be reading about a court case where the 13 year old is facing prison time for said non-story. Someone is doing it wrong, even if we don't know how.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday July 02 2018, @05:02PM (3 children)
This seems somewhat absurd. Why shouldn't you get to record yourself? I tend to record some of the meetings I take part in, mostly due to it being annoying to take notes in certain meetings. That said tho that is actually legal where I am -- I don't even have to inform the other participants that I'm doing it.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday July 02 2018, @11:56PM
The most sane law is the one where you can initiate recording as long as you inform all the participants. Further participation is considered consent to recording. This happens on telephones all day long in various industries that record customer consent in such ways.
In this kids case though, the moment he informed them, they could elect to stop speaking. What we need is a law that allows minors to record interactions with adults where that minor is detained. No exceptions beyond the parents or legal guardians.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2018, @01:00AM (1 child)
The issue is that it's not being consented to. The problem with 1 party consent for these sorts of things is that you don't know about the various tapes you're on and it's only if you yourself say something that you shouldn't that you learn about those tapes. If they say something incriminating, they're not likely to advertise the fact that they have tapes of themselves incriminating themselves.
It's not ideal, but it is at least some protection even though disclosure of such tapes to law enforcement would probably not result in charges for the person recording the conversation otherwise.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 03 2018, @03:10PM
One-party consent is so much fun though, because it enables all these incidents where some Republican politician thinks no one is listening and then he accidenally outs himself as a big douchebag.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @05:09PM (2 children)
Read 13 year old -- innocuous act -- school -- felony charges ... Is he black?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday July 02 2018, @05:32PM (1 child)
No he's not.
Next?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @06:57PM
Surprising...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @05:18PM (1 child)
It is quite simple. Assume anyone you are talking to in an adversarial manner could be bugged. Unless it was agreed upon beforehand, any conversation in a public building such as a school should have no expectation of privacy. If you work for a government in any capacity, the general rule is unless information is explicitly protected, assume that by law it will be available to the general public.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Monday July 02 2018, @06:05PM
You reach too far.
Nothing in law dictates that every conversation outside your home is fair game for anyone with a microphone.
That you believe it is, just shows how pathetically low your expectations of freedom really are.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Improbus on Monday July 02 2018, @05:49PM (1 child)
This is a smart kid. He already knows that you can't trust adults. Why else would he be recording them. I would say how do they sleep at night but those prosecutors and school administrators probably sleep like little psychopathic babies.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @06:20PM
Naah, just establish that the kid is an incel. He's 13? How many women has he had sex with? Any? Yep, he's an incel. Throw the book at him. He hates women and the authorities that protect women because he can't get laid.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday July 02 2018, @06:14PM (1 child)
But make it sound more EULA like.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday July 02 2018, @07:55PM
Notification is not exactly the same as consent.
The school has video recording in operation 24/7, and probably with microphones as well. (hard to buy cams without built in mics these days).
They have signs up as well.
That's still not consent, especially when you have no choice but to BE there.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AlwaysNever on Monday July 02 2018, @06:19PM (1 child)
This kid will learn. Learn the proper procedure.
The proper procedure is: 1) you record the conversation secretly, 2) you file in the police station a declaration that someone has stollen your phone, 3) you upload the recorded conversation to the cloud using some proxy, 4) you win.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday July 03 2018, @02:10AM
Except, if (1) is the crime, then that the recording exists at all is pretty damning evidence against you. And (2) and (3) will do nothing to protect you, but will likely make you guilty of perjury.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @07:34PM (7 children)
This kid's parents need to immediately setup a gofundme campaign to raise funds for legal costs. Time to draw some bad press to an abusive law and get paid!
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Monday July 02 2018, @07:56PM
Or take some parenting classes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2018, @01:02AM (5 children)
Abusive law? You want random people recording you with impunity? Single party consent isn't as great as you think it is and there's a ton of repercussions that happen when only one party needs to consent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2018, @02:12AM (3 children)
The law could stop at simply rendering affected recordings inadmissible and still be effective. There is no need to ruin lives by also making the act a felony. The harshness of the penalty is a clear indication that those with power intended to craft the law to send a clear message to those without: one of fear. Regardless of the delinquency of this particular child, the punishment is disproportional to the offense and an unreasonable burden to his family. Any of us would feel the same if this were our child, hopefully even Frojack.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday July 03 2018, @07:01AM (2 children)
It is not just felony, the minimum punishment is 1 year.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday July 03 2018, @11:48AM
The minimum punishment is nothing.
He's a kid, so the maximum punishment is probably nearly nothing.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:44AM
Plus the detention he didn't serve, you forgot that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday July 03 2018, @02:15AM
Random people that I've chosen to have a conversation with? Sure. Why not, exactly? Why shouldn't they be able to prove, to themselves and others, what I actually said?
Now an uninvolved third party is a different question, but that's no longer even single-party consent. And even then - if you say something in public, you shouldn't be surprised if it comes back to haunt you.