Chicago Is Tracking Kids Awaiting Trial With GPS Monitors That Can Call, Record Them Without Consent (theappeal.org) 187
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Appeal: On March 29, court officials in Chicago strapped an ankle monitor onto Shawn, a 15-year-old awaiting trial on charges of armed robbery. They explained that the device would need to be charged for two hours a day and that it would track his movements using GPS technology. He was told he would have to be given permission to leave his house, even to go to school. But he found out that through his monitor, officers wouldn't just be able to track his location, as most electronic monitors do. They would also be able to speak -- and listen -- to him. Shawn, whose name has been changed to protect his identity, is one of hundreds of children in Chicago whose ankle monitors are now equipped with microphones and speakers. The stated purpose of these devices is to communicate with the children, but they are raising concerns among civil liberties watchers that they are actually a mechanism for surveilling the conversations of these kids and those around them -- and potentially for using the recordings in criminal cases.
In January, Cook County, home of Chicago, awarded a contract to the electronic monitoring company Track Group, which will lease 275 ankle monitors to keep tabs on children awaiting trial. The devices, known as ReliAlert XC3, have two-way communication capabilities that allow both electronic monitoring officers at the criminal court and employees at Track Group's monitoring center to call an individual wearing a monitor at any time. The wearer can press a button on the device to reach the monitoring center, but there is no way to decline an incoming call. Cook County officials said juvenile probation began using the new devices in February because of their extended battery life and more secure band. The devices were also selected because of their built-in communication, as some children on probation are difficult to reach by phone. But Pat Milhizer, the director of communications for the office of the chief judge in the Circuit Court of Cook County, said the county would now review concerns about privacy. "I can't quite even start down the parade of horribles in terms of all the ways this could be a problem," said Sarah Staudt, senior policy analyst and staff attorney for Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and a former juvenile defense attorney in Cook County. "The idea that an adult can turn on a listening device while a child is, say, in the bathroom or in their bedroom is not good."
In January, Cook County, home of Chicago, awarded a contract to the electronic monitoring company Track Group, which will lease 275 ankle monitors to keep tabs on children awaiting trial. The devices, known as ReliAlert XC3, have two-way communication capabilities that allow both electronic monitoring officers at the criminal court and employees at Track Group's monitoring center to call an individual wearing a monitor at any time. The wearer can press a button on the device to reach the monitoring center, but there is no way to decline an incoming call. Cook County officials said juvenile probation began using the new devices in February because of their extended battery life and more secure band. The devices were also selected because of their built-in communication, as some children on probation are difficult to reach by phone. But Pat Milhizer, the director of communications for the office of the chief judge in the Circuit Court of Cook County, said the county would now review concerns about privacy. "I can't quite even start down the parade of horribles in terms of all the ways this could be a problem," said Sarah Staudt, senior policy analyst and staff attorney for Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and a former juvenile defense attorney in Cook County. "The idea that an adult can turn on a listening device while a child is, say, in the bathroom or in their bedroom is not good."
Those darn Chicago Republicans (Score:1, Insightful)
All these Orwellian police state tactics instituted by (R) dominated cities....
Re:Those darn Chicago Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
Chicago is run by democrats. This isn't a republican issue.
I'm not sure that I see a problem with this. I would also argue that it isn't with out their consent. You have a choice. Stay in jail till your trial, or wear this monitor and mostly get on with your life.
Re: Those darn Chicago Republicans (Score:1, Interesting)
Ok let's say they are in the bathroom when someone decides to call them. Even in jail they have more privacy than that.
And ability to listen to everything that is going on? If the government wants that, it should put them in jail where it can listen.
Um, if the kids are hard to reach by telephone, call their parents. Anyway they should have a date and time when they need to report in. What does the government need to call them about at random times? To ask what they're having for lunch?
At the very least ther
Re: Those darn Chicago Republicans (Score:1)
You have OBVIOUSLY never worked with the kind of kids who get into police level trouble before 18. The fact that you said to call their parents was a dead give away how naive and privileged and isolated you are.
The only reason these fucked up little monsters get ankle bracelets is because there are too many to hold until trial. And btw unlikely their first time in court and certainly not their last.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one making the ad-hominem attacks. ie: Crying.
These kids behaved like animals and subsequently have less rights than animals. I don't care if they get recorded masturbating. Kid is in trial for *armed Robbery* Fuck him, and his parents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No they don't. In jail you have no privacy what so ever. You poop in full view of guards and inmates. They can strip search you anytime they want too. An go through any items you have and even take them away for any reason what so ever.
These are not model children, and nether are their parents, that are being tagged and monitored. These are gang bangers and other problem people. I think we should dispense with the turning it on at random times, and just leave the recording on 24 hours a day. How
Re: Those darn Chicago Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
These are also people that are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Re: Those darn Chicago Republicans (Score:4, Informative)
And they're also minors. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about civil liberties and minors.
"As minors by law, children do not have autonomy or the right to make decisions on their own for themselves in any known jurisdiction of the world."
That means the state can step in for the parents (same as CPS can take a child away) and decide what rights the child does or does not have,
Re: (Score:3)
"Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution, as enshrined by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of that amendment is to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born."
While they lack autonomy, they still have (at least some) civil rights. Which means the 4th amendment still applies. See New Jersey v. T.L.
Re: (Score:2)
"As minors by law, children do not have autonomy or the right to make decisions on their own for themselves in any known jurisdiction of the world." That means the state can step in for the parents (same as CPS can take a child away) and decide what rights the child does or does not have,
Children have tons of rights that don't involve autonomy like protection from abuse and neglect. Those protections don't get any less if CPS takes over the parental responsibilities. If you want to go outside the authority granted by parenthood, then it's that authority like criminal law that sets the rules. An armed robber can be put in jail whether he's 15yo or 20yo, that's fine. But a parent can't put a 15yo in jail. Neither can the state as acting parents. It is okay for me as a parent to strap this bra
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, in a court of law they are innocent until proven guilty. Until then, they are not considered anything but guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in a court of law they are innocent until proven guilty.
You're mis-dividing the sentence. Until then, under the law, it is completely unsettled and so the defendant has a natural presumption of innocence. The only thing that will change that is a conviction. Maybe not in the court of public opinion - especially yours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Walking while black at the same time a crime happens anywhere. You most be unaware just how often this happens.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people are killed by members of their own race, whites included, and while Chicago isn't the most violent city, it is right next to Indiana with it's lax gun control laws. Any more spinning of racist confirmation biases, or are you done?
Re: (Score:1)
Most people are killed by members of their own race, whites included, and while Chicago isn't the most violent city, it is right next to Indiana with it's lax gun control laws. Any more spinning of racist confirmation biases, or are you done?
Eh I'll have a swing. Black people are awful upset about a small disparity in the shooting rate of black and white suspects (before threat level is accounted for, of course, because if they did that... byebye disparity). Per UCR data, you're not wrong that most, 86% in fact, homicides are intraracial, but concerning the 14% that are interracial, blacks are *26 times* more likely to kill someone white than someone white is to kill someone black. Now tell me with a straight face if that disparity was reversed
Re: (Score:2)
They're all single-parent households?
Re: (Score:2)
Well ain't that convenient. All those references in the Bill of Rights to "the people" only refer to adult people, I suppose.
Re: Those darn Chicago Republicans (Score:4, Informative)
The ones on probation can be considered guilty, but the ones awaiting trial cannot be presumed guilty. Further, Illinois law requires the consent of ALL parties being listened in on. It is entirely possible the kid is talking to someone who has never even been accused of a crime who has no opportunity to consent or decline, making the listening or recording illegal.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Consent for recording doesn't apply to children. Or do you think parents get their infants consent to baby monitors? In this case parental rights have been taken by the state (as they can and do for many purposes) and the state chooses to record the child. The child doesn't need to provide consent because the child does not have legal autonomy.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the other people around the kid? Teachers, parents, other kids at their school - they all have an expectation that they are not under government surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of children, the consent has to come from the parents (who obviously DO consent to the baby monitor). These are not cases where parental rights have been terminated.
And as Link said, those around the child have not consented either.
Re: (Score:2)
Innocent people don't belong in jail. That practice was always questionable. What's wrong with a GPS tracker that rings like a phone but doesn't engage the microphone until the wearer presses a button to answer? Or just a GPS tracker?
Re: (Score:2)
You may be replying to the wrong person. I am in favor of limiting the device capabilities and removing the ability to listen without a positive action from the wearer. Not just an administrative prohibition, but in the device itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree that they should be monitored, but as a legal principle, unless they have prior convictions, they are just accused.
Note how frequently, we allow the accused to bail out if they have the means to do so. Why should having a stack of cash handy be the criterion for release until trial? Does having a stack of cash (possibly due to criminal acts) really make a person magically less dangerous? Note especially when being held for trial is used as a lever to coerce a plea bargain, especially when the bar
Re: (Score:2)
Prior convictions could matter if they are currently on probation or parole. In those cases, more extreme measures like being held for trial may be ethically justifiable.
Someone wearing an ankle bracelet and restricted in their movements will have little opportunity to commit a crime and very little chance of getting away with it.
If ethics don't concern you, there's the fact that jail costs a lot more per day than monitoring an ankle bracelet.
Re: Those darn Chicago Republicans (Score:2)
The bigger issue on privacy is not so much that the little darlings are being invaded, it's that everyone around them is as well.
The people in earshot of him/her never consented to that.
If there is a condition that they attend a recovery support group or any other place that implies confidentiality, they will be violated. This could cause actual legal issues. HIPPA (sp?) privacy laws are taken *very* seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok let's say they are in the bathroom when someone decides to call them. Even in jail they have more privacy than that.
So what? You say, "I'm on the shitter. Still wanna chat?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that you're an idiot who doesn't understand that the threat of jail represents coercion and duress - and that consent obtained under such situations is legally questionable (at best).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure there was a "whoosh" in there. I thought to myself after I posted. "You know, I believe I completely missed the point there."
Re: (Score:1)
All politicians are crooked shysters.
Trump is included. We've put him in the swamp to kill as many of the other critters as he can before his term is up.
We don't have to invite Trump over for a dinner party. We just have to let him do his job.
Re: (Score:2)
All politicians are crooked shysters.
Trump is included. We've put him in the swamp to kill as many of the other critters as he can before his term is up.
We don't have to invite Trump over for a dinner party. We just have to let him do his job.
But instead hes's decided being a critter is actually pretty good and is trying to set himself up as head critter.
Re: (Score:2)
All these Orwellian police state tactics instituted by (R) dominated cities....
Is this a horrible police state tactic, or a humane alternative to jail?
Re:Those darn Chicago Republicans (Score:4, Informative)
The last Republican mayor of Chicago was elected 90 years ago. There are more Socialists than Republicans in the city council.
Re:Those darn Chicago Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
Chicago voters are rolling over in their graves.
Re: (Score:2)
Does a little LED light up when it's listening? (Score:4, Insightful)
Than I don't care.
In 2014, a technician for Track Group, which was then called SecureAlert, testified during a hearing in Puerto Rico that although the device is supposed to vibrate and make a noise when itâ(TM)s activated, the listening and speaking capabilities can be turned on without warning.
and now I care.
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA: “I can’t quite even start down the parade of horribles in terms of all the ways this could be a problem,” said Sarah Staudt, senior policy analyst and staff attorney for Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and a former juvenile defense attorney in Cook County. “The idea that an adult can turn on a listening device while a child is, say, in the bathroom or in their bedroom is not good.”
That is the most horrible thing she can think of? I suppose it is possible there mi
Re: (Score:3)
Or how about just taking random snippets of conversation out of context and playing them back at the trial?
Re: (Score:2)
Than I don't care.
In 2014, a technician for Track Group, which was then called SecureAlert, testified during a hearing in Puerto Rico that although the device is supposed to vibrate and make a noise when itâ(TM)s activated, the listening and speaking capabilities can be turned on without warning.
and now I care.
Yes, but I would like to know if that is still the case. Four plus years is a long time for this sort of technology and we are almost certainly at least one generation removed from the one that technician was discussing. It would not surprise me to discover that they intended for the devices to work as described in their brochures, but went to market before they had actually gotten them to work that way. (of course, it would also not surprise me to discover that they claimed publicly that they work one wy
I'm having trouble seeing the problem with this (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, the only time this kid gets to be un-monitored is when he's talking to his lawyer. Bragging to his homies? Gotcha.
Don't like it? Cool your jets in jail until your trial date comes up. You aren't some random dude minding his own business. You're probably an asshole who needs to be locked away for decades, and this is your last chance to prove the prosecutor wrong.
Consent = not going to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
They wear the monitor and consent to it's use. Or they can stay at the Big House. Where's the lack of consent exactly?
Re: (Score:1)
What about the consent of the people they are near. They did not consent.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the consent of the people they are near. They did not consent.
I didn't consent to reading this drivel yet here we are.
There is no consent under duress (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's your head exactly?
Option A: Get lojacked with a device that records everyone around you
Option B: Go to jail. Where you can be beaten, raped and tortured. And if you stay there long at all you'll lose your house/job/kids. Even if you are completely innocent.
There's no more "consent" here than a bank "consents" to part with some cash when someone slips a threatening note to a teller.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there some law against covertly recording people without their consent in the US? Even if the person wearing the thing is aware of it, those around them may not be.
Re: (Score:2)
You're having trouble? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're OK with guilty until proven innocent?
Plenty of innocent people are in jail while awaiting trial.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But their parents/guardians can for them.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're OK with guilty until proven innocent?
Yes, and so are you - in certain cases.
This "child" is accused of Armed Robbery - not calling in a fake hate crime - such people are typically considered a threat to society and are kept in jail until trial - they can offer up a big pile of money to guarantee they will return for their court date. While out on bail, they are subject to certain restrictions, and, if required by the court, an ankle monitor.
Would you prefer people accused of violent crimes be released on their own recognizance? No, of course n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm having trouble seeing the problem with this
The kid is accused of armed robbery.
And you Snotnose are accused of murder, by me just now.
So do you continue to not see the problem with YOU being forced to wear one of these?
Why are you not doing so then?
But he's probably a gang banger who is going to brag about his crimes to his homies.
Yes, you probably are. I suppose that means you are not only OK wearing one of these, but making it permanent? After all you just admitted premeditated interference with a criminal investigation by announcing the fact you intend to not brag about your crimes we obviously-clearly-KNOW you committed so long as you know you're being monitore
Re: (Score:2)
Although it is possible to fight your case while still in custody, it is much easier to do so if you are out on bail. Why is this the case? Firstly, although you will still have the charge hanging over you, you will be relatively free in the meantime, this means that you will have a lot less stress on you, as will your family. This will allow you the benefit of working on fighting your case without the additional worry that being incarcerated will add to you.
Re: (Score:2)
That only works if you're well off or have a huge support network to front both bail AND legal fees at the same time.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That only works if you're well off or have a huge support network to front both bail AND legal fees at the same time.
That is the point of these trackers. They allow more people to be released with little or no bail.
Re: (Score:3)
That only works if you're well off or have a huge support network to front both bail AND legal fees at the same time.
This is why there is a movement afoot to eliminate bail altogether. Instead they perform a theoretically impartial risk assessment and if you score low enough you are released pending trial.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably an asshole who needs to be locked away for decades, and this is your last chance to prove the prosecutor wrong.
Repeat after me. Innocent until proven guilty. That's the law. You can hate on these people all you want, but that's a good reason for you to not be in charge of this.
Bail is Bullshit (Score:2)
A debt doesn't compel someone to show up for court dates - the threat of being arrested does. All bail does is give lazy and corrupt prosecutors a way to pressure poor people into pleading guilty to charges instead of contesting them in court.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you skipped a few words there. Excessive bail paid by extortionate bail bonds firms give lazy and corrupt prosecutors a way to pressure poor people into pleading guilty to charges instead of contesting them in court. In theory, bail is a reasonable solution. It just doesn't always work out that way in practice, particularly in states that give bail bondsmen the right to arrest people for not paying minimum payments on those bonds.
That said, you're right that a debt doesn't compel someone, though
Re: (Score:2)
So you'll feel the same way if he walks past you and a friend having a conversation and his device records you without your consent?
Consider, they could just track him and have it ring like a phone when an officer wants to talk to him. He could be required to acknowledge that with a button that enables the microphone. It could even allow the speaker to work without the microphone.
If the Constitution is anything but fancy toilet paper, the kid remains innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. People ar
Because he's innocent until proven guilty (Score:1)
Don't like it? Then off to the gulags with you comrade. You were probably a dissident who needs to be locked away for decades anyway, but this is your last chance to prove the commandant wrong.
I should add (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problems with you having no problems with this for the person wearing it.
But what about YOUR privacy? If that little fucker is anywhere near you, YOU are being recorded. What crime did you commit again? I keep forgetting these little details. Oh right, you committed the crime of not caring about the indirect effects of this thing. You are only looking at its direct effect on the criminal.
Ah well, welcome to the planet. You will fit right in bro. Fit right in.
Re: (Score:1)
No 'they' are definitely not all guilt of something. Dude with the monitor on his leg likely is.
Re: (Score:1)
You get that this means listening to people around them as well? People to whom they may not disclose that they're a police listening device. Do you think it's reasonable, for example, if they're having sex with their minor girlfriend/boyfriend that someone should be secretly listening in? Don't even try to pretend that it wouldn't be abused for this sort of thing. It's been shown time and time again that, for example, TSA agents abuse their access for prurient reasons. We've just gotten more callous about
Re: (Score:3)
He's awaiting trial for ARMED ROBBERY. He OUGHT to be in JAIL.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They gave consent when they accepted this as a condition for release
Before armchair lawyering, did you work for Microsoft writing EULAs?
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of states require two-party consent for audio recordings. This is a reason why so few surveillance cameras have microphones. The audio portion is often inadmissible.
Listening, not watching (Score:2)
"The idea that an adult can turn on a listening device while a child is, say, in the bathroom or in their bedroom is not good."
Seriously, what is the big deal about listening to a kid poop? If a pedophile has some weird fetish for that, they can already go to any public restroom and site quietly in a stall listening to kids poop in the other stalls. Or if the kid is masturbating, well, same thing. If pedo fetishist really wants to volunteer to work for law enforcement in order to have the chance to listen t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"child" - evil thug that did a man's crime (Score:2)
So instead of being in jail because of no bail, the can wear these.
Let's be clear about something, most of these are animals needing a leash.
ARMED ROBERY (Score:2)
The "child" is accused of armed robbery. ARMED ROBBERY. He should be thankful that another gang member or the cops didn't shoot him while he was attempting to escape. I agree that wearing an ankle monitor is inappropriate; he ought to be in jail.
Needs to be charged for two hours a day? (Score:2)
Needs to be charged for two hours a day? They cheaped out on equipment. Using non-local GPS computation* and Lithium batteries would power it orders of magnitude longer.
*A non-local GPS system like Skybitz GLS [wikipedia.org] relays the dozen or so GPS signal data to servers in the cloud, thus saving battery usage.
the arrogance of many is mind blowing (Score:1)
The kids who wind up in these shitty circumstances are not all bad kids. The cops are corrupt as hell and I've seen a lot of liars (ie cops) testify against innocent individuals in court. The police will plant evidence because someone looked at them wrong or manipulate circumstances to put innocent people away. There is zero chance I'd convict a guilty party if I were on a jury. The system is so bad that you can't trust any evidence that is presented in court. Those who thing otherwise are naive. I'm a medi
fine. throw them in jail (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was being sarcastic about throwing him in jail. That is exactly what we used to do. America's real problem is that we used to spend money on mental health, but then the GOP esp under reagan, cut it way back. Said that we were pampering ppl
As to the
Is it child porn if you only have moans but no pic (Score:2)
Teenage sex (Score:2)
Exactly what also flew my mind.
If these teens are not idiots (did they all get busted for stupid things like robery, or are there more-brain-than-brawl criminals in the lot), they would have some loud sex (they're horny teens after all) and try to counter sue for child-pornography.
Also, they are kids, they are probably more tech-savvy than most of the other people involved (well, save probably for the summary's burglar. Are there kids awaiting trial for hacking in this surveillance program ?), they will pro
Suverillance (Score:2)
If that worked prisons could not have any surveillance either.
I would presume that by default some small private part in a normal prison (e.g.: toilet booth) aren't on continuously cam (and an escort would be required if strong suspiction requires to monitor those moments).
From what I've heard, here around in Europe, when inmates are having conjugal visits [wikipedia.org] their activities aren't on cam either for the same obvious reasons.
(Where's BankRoberMBA when you need him to share his experience as an inmate ?)
I would strongly presume that nothing forbids the teenage person to e
Well, you're phone can do that (Score:2)
Most people are strapped to them too.
DOH:Well, your phone can do that (Score:2)
Apologies for the grammar error in the header.
Sorry (Score:2)
I'm sorry but in my mind a kid about to be convicted for armed robbery should NOT have any expectation of privacy. He should feel lucky to avoid prison because that's where he belongs. A kid that age shouldn't be involved in more than a bit of shoplifting, vandalism and similar, not armed robbery. If you do that you both have the wrong friends and a really bad moral spine.
There's a bigger issue here... (Score:3, Insightful)
All of these comments are petty arguments over politics and race, when the real issue here is that technology has been getting developed specifically for intrusive use by the government. Where do we draw the line? Obviously, the crime this kid did brings little sympathy... but what if surveillance technology becomes the norm for DUIs or minor drug offenses?
Re: (Score:2)
When you've already tossed "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" overboard... Your concern about civil rights and government intrusion rings more than a little hollow.
Re: (Score:1)
When you've already tossed "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" overboard... Your concern about civil rights and government intrusion rings more than a little hollow.
Civil rights, and the overarching governments, will undoubtedly change with the weather. Technology is a much scarier adversary- once you start a particular path of innovation and development, there's no turning back.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, the crime this kid did brings little sympathy... but what if surveillance technology becomes the norm for DUIs or minor drug offenses?
Everyone comes under surveillance because these devices do not just record the supposed 'perp'.
But of course, you were begging someone to say that.
You're not wrong, if that is any consolation. Most people still won't get what you are saying though. It is not a 'direct' effect.
it's voluntary. (Score:2)
Or attorney (Score:2)
"The idea that an adult can turn on a listening device while a child is, say, in the bathroom or in their bedroom is not good."
This could also be used to listen to privileged conversations. While they couldn't use them in court directly there would be no way to determine if the prosecution otherwise took advantage of that knowledge.
Monitoring Gone Too Far... (Score:2)
It's one thing to require a GPS tracking bracelet on a person for pre-trial supervision or even as a term of probation for a limited term but to enable communication through that device... that is too far in the name of "justice".
I could easily see such technology being used without prior notice of the monitored to listen in on private communications, even privileged communications such as with a lawyer or counselor; this is of course not to mention the fact that such monitoring could be used to build a gre
Well, that was depressing. (Score:2)
Assuming most of the commentators here are in the US of A, the number of people not just willing but enthusiastically willing to give up on what remains of our constitutional rights is sad.