Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Dogs and cats living together!

Posted in:

Illinois

Current state law prohibits people with felony records from working in a school, or volunteering, or even driving a truck that makes deliveries to a school. But a measure pending before the Illinois House of Representatives could change that.

* This is an interesting bill for a couple of reasons. First…

Floyd Stafford could benefit from Cassidy’s legislation.

“I got a felony for a non-violent drug offense,” he says. “So basically, I purchased some drugs, and you know, I got arrested for that.”

In 2006, he got caught buying cocaine, less than a gram, and served four months in jail. Stafford says the drug treatment he received while incarcerated changed his life. Since his release, he says he has stayed clean and sober; he is currently enrolled in graduate school at the University of Chicago, where he’s set to finish in June with a master’s degree in social work.

“If you’re looking at my resume, I’d put that up — and I say this in all humility — I would line that up with any other prospective applicant, and I think I would come out favorably,” Stafford says.

That seems perfectly reasonable.

* But there’s another reason. The lead sponsor is Rep. Kelly Cassidy, one of the most liberal members of the Illinois General Assembly. The bill, however, is also backed by the Illinois Policy Institute…

“To have someone with that background, who’s maybe made a mistake and turned their life around, holds a lot of credibility with students who may be on the wrong track,” [Illinois Policy Institute criminal justice policy analyst Bryant Jackson-Green] says, “so it would be helpful, especially in a social worker position.” […]

“The sort of bills we support are things that encourage redemption, second chances. I mean, yes, someone might have made a mistake when they were 18, 19 and gotten in trouble,” Jackson-Green says. “But that doesn’t mean they should be barred for the rest of their life from having an employment opportunity with the school.”

* Ah, but that’s not all. Check out this press release…

Breen Sponsors ACLU Bill to Restrict Government Tracking of Citizens
Bill Would Restrict Use of Automatic License Plate Readers By Government

This morning, Rep. Peter Breen (R-Lombard) presented the “Freedom from Automatic License Plate Reader Surveillance Act” to the House Judiciary-Civil Committee, which advanced the measure to the House floor by a unanimous vote of 11-0. The measure is an initiative of the ACLU of Illinois and was vigorously opposed by law enforcement agencies. The Act would limit government use of automatic license plate readers, require that license plate data not be retained for more than 30 days, and prohibit the practice of government agencies selling license plate data to private companies.

“Right now, government agencies have deployed license plate readers across Illinois to track the movements of private citizens,” said Breen. “Illinoisans may not realize that, right now, their movements may be tracked without their permission and with no limitation on that tracking. These devices raise grave privacy issues, and I’m glad to work with the ACLU of Illinois to keep the government from infringing the rights of our residents.“

License plate readers are able to read thousands of license plates per hour, tracking the location and owner of all cars that pass by a particular plate reader. These plate readers can be used to identify cars connected to criminal activity or missing persons. However, government agencies can also easily aggregate data from plate readers deployed across a geographic area to keep track of the location and movement of private citizens. While many other states have enacted regulations on license plate readers, the collection and use of plate reader data are totally unregulated in Illinois today.

Breen’s bill would limit the government to six types of uses for automatic readers: electronic toll collection; traffic enforcement; parking enforcement; access to secured areas; criminal investigations; and for identifying vehicles connected to violations of law or missing persons.

The bill would also allow the government to retain data for more than 30 days in limited specified circumstances, relating to active criminal investigations or legal cases. The bill additionally would require law enforcement agencies to develop and post online their automatic license plate reader use policies, along with developing audit procedures and proper training on the use of readers.

Wait a second.

Peter Breen and the ACLU fighting shoulder to shoulder against law enforcement? You mean the Thomas Moore Society’s Peter Breen who recently testified in favor of the disastrous Indiana Religious Freedom Act?

Yep. That Peter Breen.

* Back to the press release…

The bill has broad bipartisan support, including chief cosponsors, Reps. Ann Williams (D-Chicago), Elaine Nekritz (D-Northbrook), Keith Wheeler (R-Oswego), and Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove).

Go check out the sponsorship list. It’s kinda hilarious. Jeanne Ives and Will Guzzardi are co-sponsors, as are Mary Flowers and Mark Batinick.

Ever think that would happen?

Me neither.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:15 am

Comments

Mass hysteria! (sorry. couldn’t resist)

Comment by Juice Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:15 am
Let’s just hope no one says “Politics makes strange bedfellows” — the implications could make Breen panic and reverse his position!

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:24 am
MrJM, you are priceless!

Comment by Concerned Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:25 am
“When asked about the list of sponsors for the legislation, Rep. Ron Sandack said it was a list of ‘Who’s who’ in Illinois Government”…

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:25 am
One of the bright spots in national politics is the seemingly forming consensus on fhe folly of the War on Drugs and mass incarceration of non-violent offenders.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:34 am
Someone should check if a large marshmallow man is walking down Michigan Avenue.

Comment by Jerry 101 Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:45 am
I thought I held an irrational fear that the Illinois Toll Highway Authority had the means to measure the times that I drove past multiple tollbooths and later send me a speeding ticket in the mail.
Turns out I was wrong, as my fear now appears rational.

Comment by Jake From Elwood Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:47 am
They have found a common enemy and were amazed to discover it was technology.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:56 am
Il anti eavesdropping law was primarily pushed by the legislature to protect themselves from surveillance .

Let me play devils advocate. So public officials are getting money for travel reimbursmenet; mileage and other activites. Tax payer money. Suppose plat reader info could be foia’d and used to show that many public officials were abusing the use of reimbursements by claiming business travel that never occured, or had a non businrss destination etc. those public officials would stampeded to pass a bill that coild be used to hold them accountable. This looks like public servants abusing the system afraid of being detected.

Also there expectation of privacy usually does not apply to something the public can observe on their own. This does not invade private space, but may show a lot of abuse by governemnt officials.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:59 am
Actually, these are some serious money saving ideas. The removal of the prohibitions attached to a felony conviction is IMO, a “no brainer”.

The license plate scanner prohibition is a fantastic idea. From a technical standpoint, I don’t think Breen’s bill goes far enough.

People do not realize that these license plate scanners are what might be described as an “information stream clogger”. They can pump so much information into the system, most of which is completely useless to a particular government’s needs, that it’s literally like spamming one’s self.

It’s one of these IT concepts that you don’t actually ‘get’ until you actually have it happen to you. The never ending information data stream of license plate scans can become like a self-inflicted DDoS attack. And then the IT folks literally spend a substantial amount of time (and money, which is going to become a really scarce resource) trying to deal with the data flow. What happens is that other existing data processing issues become lower priority - something else doesn’t get done.

And the license plate scanner data flow eventually becomes an on-going issue - sort of like a drug addition. That’s where the ’selling’ comes into play.

And then you have another problem - these license plate scanners are just like red light cameras - the public pretty much hates them. Here’s reality - nobody likes being spied upon. Well, maybe the NSA. And people wonder why there is so much hostility toward government.

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 12:22 pm
Agree with Ghost on no expectation of privacy while using public roads. Use the data to build probable cause for searches of vehicles used in illegal activities.

Data could also support alibis.

Tyrants drive tyranny. Technology is neutral.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 12:23 pm
these license plate scanners are what might be described as an “information stream clogger”. They can pump so much information into the system, most of which is completely useless to a particular government’s needs, that it’s literally like spamming one’s self.

That is a FANTASTIC analogy.

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 12:24 pm
“Suppose plat reader info could be foia’d and used to show that many public officials were abusing the use of reimbursements by claiming business travel that never occurred, or had a non business destination”
——————

First off, doubt that you could FOIA that information. Maybe. Secondly, why would you want to? It’s a potentially giant raw data stream, and you better have some really serious computing power available to you. And there’s other issues.

IMO, these license plate scanners are a really poor use of technology. Imagine if you are really big into streaming video of movies and shows (TV, cable), but the tradeoff was that everybody else ended up with 15-20 second response time for your/their Internet access? Probably not too happy. Well, as these things get out there along streets and roads, guess what? It could happen - hopefully not…..

IMO, government IT is in enough of a mess. No need to make things worse with pushing even more unneeded, artery clogging license plate scanned information into an already over burdened system.

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 12:44 pm
Breen is a very smart guy. It’s worth getting to know him a lot better than most people do. I think over time you’ll see him changing dialogue in the intelligent and gentlemanly fashion that people who really know him, know him for. This is a really good bill. Good for him.

Comment by A guy Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 12:44 pm
In regards to the Stafford issue: All decisions have consequences, in this case Stafford’s decision to engage in an illegal activity has consequences, that being that he can’t work around children. As can be seen from his story he apparently has changed his life and has the ability to obtain a position in any number of businesses, except around children. He has show no evidence of negative impact of his conviction, he is enrolled in a top tier University and has what appears to be a bright future. We as a society have decided to protect our children from those who choose to break our rules. We need to stand firm that actions do have consequences and individuals who make bad decisions must live with those consequences.

Comment by Frank Ambrose Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 12:48 pm
It is not at all surprising (or it shouldn’t be, Rich!!!!) that people who do not want the state to force people to do business against their convictions also object to other state intrusions in private life.

The curious thing is why liberals who applaud bigger and bigger government object to the occasional program. If license plate readers were only installed around, say, gun shops and firing ranges, I’m sure Rep. Cassidy would be on board.

Comment by gopower Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 1:16 pm
GOPower, glad to hear the Thomas More Society is now against state intrusions into private life. You’d think they would have put out a press release or something.

Still, I disagree with you on the first part. If someone has a religious conviction that would keep them from doing business with Catholics, like you could in the good old days, I doubt if they would go for it.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 1:28 pm
The whole license plate reader technology is worrysome. I think the private databases, which have no oversight whatsoever and a lot more money to crunch the data, worry me as much if not more than the police using it. I’d love to see some privacy legislation that applys to the private sector as well. And don’t even get me started on what the cell phone providers know about everyone. Talk about scary.

This WSJ article in Sept. 2012, The New Tracking Frontier: Your License Plates, explained it pretty well.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443995604578004723603576296

Comment by Wondering Woman Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 1:49 pm
State teetering on bankruptcy and our legislators are worried about police using a camera to do what their eyes can already do. A thousand cameras do the exact same thing in Chicago on a daily basis, why not take that on too? What a waste of time and energy.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 2:37 pm
==that people who do not want the state to force people to do business against their convictions==

Don’t open a business

==The curious thing is why liberals==

Talking point alert . . .

==If license plate readers were only installed around, say, gun shops and firing ranges==

I’d say who cares, just like I do to the issue in general. I didn’t realize I had a right to not show my license plate when I’m driving around in public. What they heck do you anti-license plate readers fear anyway?

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 2:50 pm
With the usual suspects of the political elites being for it I am naturally against it.

Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 3:50 pm
Demo, the way I interpret this bill has more to do with how long the data is maintained. Unless there’s a compelling reason, 30 days seems long enough. There’s only a few reasons that anyone should be tracked at all. It’s a little more invasive than capturing your handsome likeness on random cameras.

Comment by A guy Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 5:18 pm
Two license plate readers and you have a time speeding tickets trap

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 7:05 pm
Ronald Reagan was wrong with hate for the baby boomers

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 7:23 pm
LOL at this bill. Backbenchers be backbenchin.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 14, 15 @ 11:30 pm
Plate readers do not track people and it doesnt id the owner. As others pointed out, no expectation of privacy on the public way. But the bill isnt just about retention. If it wasnt collected to solve a crime it can’t be used to solve a crime. Why aren’t victims rights groups up in arms? “Yes, there is a camera there miss. No, I’m not going to look at it to id the car that just ran you over.” Unbelievable.

Comment by late to the party Wednesday, Apr 15, 15 @ 8:27 am
===As others pointed out, no expectation of privacy on the public way===

Great argument. We can have a police state because you can’t expect privacy. How about if we just say we want privacy?

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 15, 15 @ 8:41 am
“Police state,” Rich. Really? I’m just trying to point out some issues with this particular bill and the technology involved. Never said they shouldn’t be regulated in some way.

Comment by late to the party Wednesday, Apr 15, 15 @ 8:58 am
===I’m just trying to point out some issues with this particular bill ===

Whatever.

Just because the court says there’s no expectation of privacy, doesn’t mean the state can’t place regulations on the police.

It’s a stupid argument.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 15, 15 @ 9:16 am
You’re attacking an argument that I’m not even making for goodness’ sake. Yes, the Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling. We can and do provide greater protections and that’s a great thing. I’m just saying that proponents should be honest about what the technology does, honest about what is and isn’t at stake, and thoroughly think through unintended consequences. I don’t think there is anything unreasonable about that.

Comment by late to the party Wednesday, Apr 15, 15 @ 9:38 am