It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NSA is in violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
So the NSA and a number of Judges think it's ok for the NSA to record people without a warrant. Well, I hate to tell them this, but it's a Felony in the state of Illinois under the Illinois Eavesdropping Act to record a conversation between 2 people without the consent of both parties (without a warrant).

codes.lp.findlaw.com...


Illinois makes it a crime to use an "eavesdropping device" to overhear or record a phone call or conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. The law defines an "eavesdropping device" as "any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communication whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means."


I'm half tempted to contact the Illinois State Police and demand that anyone from the NSA recording someone in Illinois without their consent be arrested. This also means that anyone helping the NSA could be considered in Conspiracy, Conspiracy After The Fact, or actively Aiding and Abetting in a Felony.

With all the trouble Illinois has dealt with over 2nd Amendment rights, it would be a twist if Illinois became the last bastion against illegal surveillance.
edit on 12-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CryHavoc
 


State laws can't trump federal laws



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
whocares...it's illinois....


It's full of noise....



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Sremmos80
State laws can't trump federal laws


They do if the right to make a certain law belonged to the State. It's one of the reasons the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is being shot down. States have always been the ones to decide who can get married and when (agewise). The Federal government can't all of a sudden decide to take a right away from a State, if that State has been exercising that right all along. The Illinois Eavesdropping Act was law long before any of this stuff the NSA has been doing.
edit on 12-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CryHavoc
 


Ya, but that doesn't concern national security. That plus federal judge saying the law is legit is gonna go a long way in protecting those guys at NSA in any court of law. At least that's the way I see it going down. But I do agree they all need to be arrested, right after they are done with congress



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
And? What are "the people" going to do? Revolt? lmfao We all know, that's not going to happen.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Looks like to me the best application of the law in Illinois, would be to ignore the NSA directly and use leverage on those providing the information, ATT, Google, etc. The threat of fines for noncompliance is sufficient to re-emphasize their corporate response and demand more accountability from the requesting agency. Or at least that's the theory.

Any kind of leverage works when the game is swaying public opinion to act.

ganjoa



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CryHavoc
 


Your premise has 1 giant fail. The NSA is not recording any communications. They are keeping the metadata but no voices are being recorded. The IL Act only prohibits the interception of oral communications. And why have you invented the fictitious crime of "Conspiracy after the fact." There is no such thing. By definition a conspiracy must entail being a part of the "fact"



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Duplicate post.
edit on 13-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: Duplicate post



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

F4guy
Your premise has 1 giant fail. The NSA is not recording any communications. They are keeping the metadata but no voices are being recorded. The IL Act only prohibits the interception of oral communications. And why have you invented the fictitious crime of "Conspiracy after the fact." There is no such thing. By definition a conspiracy must entail being a part of the "fact"


I see one giant fail. It's a reading fail on your part. The law also includes electronic communication. Some of this 'metadata' contains e-mails and even cell phone conversations.


The law defines an "eavesdropping device" as "any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communication whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means."


'Conspiracy after the Fact' is also called 'Accessory after the Fact'.


Conspiracy
In some situations, a charge of conspiracy can be made even if the primary offense is never committed, so long as the plan has been made, and at least one overt act towards the crime has been committed by at least one of the conspirators. Thus, an accessory before the fact will often, but not always, also be considered a conspirator. A conspirator must have been a party to the planning of the crime, rather than merely becoming aware of the plan to commit it and then helping in some way.
A person who incites another to a crime will become a part of a conspiracy if agreement is reached, and may then be considered an accessory or a joint principal if the crime is eventually committed.
In the United States, a person who learns of the crime and gives some form of assistance before the crime is committed is known as an "accessory before the fact". A person who learns of the crime after it is committed and helps the criminal to conceal it, or aids the criminal in escaping, or simply fails to report the crime, is known as an "accessory after the fact". A person who does both is sometimes referred to as an "accessory before and after the fact", but this usage is less common.


wiki.answers.com...

You really should check yourself before you type.
edit on 13-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Here's the report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on NSA spying.

www.eff.org...


Real Time Access to Phone and Internet Traffic

Second, the same telecommunications companies also allowed the NSA to install sophisticated communications surveillance equipment in secret rooms at key telecommunications facilities around the country. This equipment gave the NSA unfettered access to large streams of domestic and international communications in real time—what amounted to at least 1.7 billion emails a day, according to the Washington Post. The NSA could then data mine and analyze this traffic for suspicious key words, patterns and connections.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by F4guy
 



"any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communication whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means."


The law was passed in 1961 so modern communications are not specifically mentioned. The law should cover e-mails and text messages as "any other means" of electronic communication. If the NSA is searching for keywords without all parties agreeing it is in violation of this law.

The police tried to use this same law to keep everything except their cameras from recording traffic stops.
Illinois Police Recording Law Blocked by Supreme Court



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   

SouthernForkway26
The law was passed in 1961 so modern communications are not specifically mentioned. The law should cover e-mails and text messages as "any other means" of electronic communication. If the NSA is searching for keywords without all parties agreeing it is in violation of this law.


They've amended the law several times to make it more modern.
edit on 13-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Not to mention that the NSA is subordinate to the Dept. Of the Army, is not an independent agency, and answers directly to the regulations of the DA, DOD and ODNI directives. State laws do not govern federal agencies or military assets (with exception to nat'l guard recalls).
edit on 8-2-2014 by bonecrusher321 because: Typo



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join