|
|
|
Civil libertarians have focused their attention on a state law prohibiting the recording of conversations without mutual consent, and it’s about time they did.
Illinois has one of the strictest laws on the books when it comes to secretly recording someone else. People must obtain the consent of others before their conversations can be captured on tape or digitally.
There is some logic behind this. You don’t expect a private conversation you have with another person to be recorded without your knowledge and used for other purposes.
But the law hampers people’s ability to prove they’ve been harassed by others. The Illinois law has recently been challenged in court in several cases, with one judge last year ruling the statute unconstitutional.
Given the questions these cases have raised, one legislator has introduced a bill to revise the law. State Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-57th District, of Northbrook filed House Bill 3944 to allow people to record police officers without their consent.
While this is a good first start, the bill doesn’t go far enough. The ban on recording any person without his or her consent should be reversed.
People who receive harassing phone calls from others would be able to collect the evidence they need to show the dangers they face. Those subjected to verbal slurs, threats or intimidation would have a way of proving their claims.
Of course, this has implications for those of us in the news business. Audio recording of conversations could demonstrate who was telling the truth in a dispute over published quotes.
We understand the concerns regarding private conversations, but the pros outweigh the cons in this case. Harassers and liars could no longer shield themselves from their dubious acts, and this is a good thing.
Civil libertarians have focused their attention on a state law prohibiting the recording of conversations without mutual consent, and it’s about time they did.
Illinois has one of the strictest laws on the books when it comes to secretly recording someone else. People must obtain the consent of others before their conversations can be captured on tape or digitally.
There is some logic behind this. You don’t expect a private conversation you have with another person to be recorded without your knowledge and used for other purposes.
But the law hampers people’s ability to prove they’ve been harassed by others. The Illinois law has recently been challenged in court in several cases, with one judge last year ruling the statute unconstitutional.
Given the questions these cases have raised, one legislator has introduced a bill to revise the law. State Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-57th District, of Northbrook filed House Bill 3944 to allow people to record police officers without their consent.
While this is a good first start, the bill doesn’t go far enough. The ban on recording any person without his or her consent should be reversed.
People who receive harassing phone calls from others would be able to collect the evidence they need to show the dangers they face. Those subjected to verbal slurs, threats or intimidation would have a way of proving their claims.
Of course, this has implications for those of us in the news business. Audio recording of conversations could demonstrate who was telling the truth in a dispute over published quotes.
We understand the concerns regarding private conversations, but the pros outweigh the cons in this case. Harassers and liars could no longer shield themselves from their dubious acts, and this is a good thing.
