Monitored Alarm Systems

We talked about the decision of a federal Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner, on a controversial espionage case of Illinois, where his honor were afraid to allow people to record interactions with the police ... leading to interactions of people with the recording of the police. Or something.

"If you allow audio recordings will be heard much more. ... There will be lots of snooping by journalists and bloggers," EE. UU. Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner said. "Yes, it's a bad thing. There is no such thing as privacy. "

For me, it sounds a lot like saying you can not increase the speed limit to 65 MPH the street, because most people are going 65 MPH. It's just the point.

In any case, the mark reader informs us that the State Court of Illinois was the opposite, in the case of Michael Allison wrote about a couple of weeks, ruling that the law

not applicable

interactions with police officers, because it violates the First Amendment. In the article by Posner, many commentators (myself included), has drawn a line between the interactions between private citizens and interactions with officials, arguing that if the administration of public office, officials should not be able to hide behind the veil of privacy. Circuit Court Judge David Frankland gave a similar but more eloquently, the statement in its opinion:


"" A law designed to prevent unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of a citizen can not be used as a shield to the officials can not claim a right similar privacy in their public duties, "the judge in his decision to dismiss the five counts of espionage charges against defendant Michael Allison." The public is the employer of the officer, after all. And that includes the justice system and it is good to know a judge who did not seem to have forgotten that