Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by RyanG on February 1, 2011 at 7:16am

If money was no object, I'd have at least 2 (if not more) GoProHD cams on my person to document my ride. The next move on the chess board is plate masking, something speeders are already doing. This works great when you capture the plate or face, otherwise it may be dismissed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by igz on February 1, 2011 at 7:21am

a good solution for 'he said she said' arguments against possibly road raged drivers, like the pritzker case

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jlj on February 1, 2011 at 7:49am

Just be careful not to record a police officer.

 

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on February 1, 2011 at 8:25am

If I'm not mistaken, it is illegal to record the audio of a person without their knowledge in Illinois.  Video is still legal.  

 

If you are unaware of the current crackdown on public recording, that gizmodo article seems like a good primer.  

John L. Jensen said:

Just be careful not to record a police officer.

 

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jlj on February 2, 2011 at 5:51am

Four cases prosecuted in Illinois.

http://www.myjournalcourier.com/articles/illinois-28482-court-aclu....

H3N3 said:

I'd be interested to hear whether anyone in Illinois besides Chris Drew has been charged with illegal recording before calling it a "crackdown."

Joe TV said:

If I'm not mistaken, it is illegal to record the audio of a person without their knowledge in Illinois.  Video is still legal.  

 

If you are unaware of the current crackdown on public recording, that gizmodo article seems like a good primer.  

John L. Jensen said:

Just be careful not to record a police officer.

 

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by igz on February 3, 2011 at 4:15am

too lazy too research at the moment too, but isnt general recording in public acceptable as long as its not a cop? and not being used for a proper film?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on February 3, 2011 at 11:56am

It isn't just cops. If I recall correctly, Illinois requires consent of the recorded regardless of who they may be.

iggi said:

too lazy too research at the moment too, but isnt general recording in public acceptable as long as its not a cop? and not being used for a proper film?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on February 3, 2011 at 12:48pm

The cop thingy has been discussed more than once here on Chainlink

iggi said:

too lazy too research at the moment too, but isnt general recording in public acceptable as long as its not a cop? and not being used for a proper film?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 3, 2011 at 1:29pm

That would be extreme hyperbole from the office of redundancy department.

Serge Lubomudrov said:

After all, they even have it in small print in TV ads: "professional driver," "don't try it at home" and "dramatization."

It should have been overdramatization here ;)

H3N3 said:

Thanks for doing the footwork to find some supporting info Serge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by igz on February 3, 2011 at 1:31pm

sorry, i dont read every post on every thread.

 

however, my question still stands.  im not talking about recording police activity.  im talking about general open public space.

Duppie said:

The cop thingy has been discussed more than once here on Chainlink

iggi said:

too lazy too research at the moment too, but isnt general recording in public acceptable as long as its not a cop? and not being used for a proper film?

• ▶ Reply