Slashdot Mirror

Here's the IL law. It applies to commercial use only, and Google's not doing that. There is no damages here because there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, and there is no commercial use of the images. This was a shakedown lawsuit.

So did the Chicago Tribune get permission from all the participants and attendees of the parade they taped? No? It's because the law is about the commercial use of the image. Using photos of an event and identifying people in the picture without selling the picture or service to identify inside of it wouldn't qualify as a commercial usage. No harm, no foul per the law. Maybe that's why it wasn't brought up in IL Court - it doesn't apply.

(e) A private entity in possession of a biometric identifier or biometric information shall: (1) store, transmit, and protect from disclosure all biometric identifiers and biometric information using the reasonable standard of care within the private entity's industry; and (2) store, transmit, and protect from disclosure all biometric identifiers and biometric information in a manner that is the same as or more protective than the manner in which the private entity stores, transmits, and protects other confidential and sensitive information.

To the first point, I think the developers could argue that they store their geometric face data in the same way other video games do which would seem to abide by the law since it follows the standard throughout the video game industry (and depending on the file format used and if its proprietary in nature, they may be able to argue the encoding was sufficient to protect the information). The second point makes things more tricky since it equates the biometric data with "confidential and sensitive information" whereas I think the developers in the video game industry don't look at it that way.

So legally the brother and sister may have some legs the stand on but I mean c'mon, they really expected their facial models to be protected when they were appearing in a video game?? Lets assume they were able to perfectly encrypt that data, they still have to show it to the player. All of the critical information can then be obtained from viewing the 3D model in-game. I really don't understand the logic here.

(740 ILCS 14/20) Sec. 20. Right of action. Any person aggrieved by a violation of this Act shall have a right of action in a State circuit court or as a supplemental claim in federal district court against an offending party. A prevailing party may recover for each violation: (1) against a private entity that negligently violates a provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater; (2) against a private entity that intentionally or recklessly violates a provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater; (3) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including expert witness fees and other litigation expenses; and (4) other relief, including an injunction, as the State or federal court may deem appropriate. (Source: P.A. 95-994, eff. 10-3-08.)

Definition of aggrieved: feeling resentment at having been unfairly treated

There might be grounds for an appeal but whether it would prevail probably depends on what state/court the case is heard in. Get a good lawyer if you want to go this way you two.

Entire law here.

The summary is complete bull. Here is the primary change bring made to the law. It used to say:

        Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, photographs

They are trying to update it to say:

        Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, physical or digital photographs

In other words, they are clarifying that yes, a digital photo is a photo. The amendment also has wording stating that this is clarifying, not changing the law - that digital photographs were photographs last week too.

Here's the full text of the amendment. Underlined words are the words being added, words crossed out are being deleted.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio...

The law under which the suit was filed:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio...

The law lists what is and what is not a "biometric identifier ":

        "Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan,
          fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.
          Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples,
          written signatures, photographs,

And yet, Facebook doesn't just store photographs, if Facebook only stored photographs, then it would have a heck of a time trying to query information every time there was a Facial Recognition query.

It's just like Shazam, while I am sure that Shazam possesses the music track of every possible song out there. There is a lot processing, analysis, and audio indexing/voice printing that is done on those music tracks so that Shazam is able to recognize a music track in a room full of ambient noise or recognize a short music clip distorted and spliced into another song.

The law under which the suit was filed:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio...

The law lists what is and what is not a "biometric identifier ":

        "Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan,
          fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.
          Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples,
          written signatures, photographs,

This law compels them to say so. http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio... (See Section 15,) But it does not actually empower them to require the passwords.

There is a different law. Right to Privacy in the School Setting Act requires school districts to send a warning to parents that the school may require children to disclose their passwords. The cyberbullying law has absolutely nothing to do with this. Ignorant journalists and bloggers have latched onto this cyberbullying law and are spreading this bullshit. The Privacy Act, while requiring schools to send a warning to parents, does NOT empower the schools to actually demand passwords from students. http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio... See Section 15.

My first thought when reading TFA was that the superintendent who sent the threatening letter was insane...but unlike the summary, the article does link to this other insane Illinois law, which passed the senate 50-5, went into effect Jan. 1, 2014, and in fact does give primary and secondary school officials the right to demand account passwords. So it is just the Illinois legislature that is insane (and begging for constitutional challenge).

The school officials, conversely, are not wrong, merely eager to act the part of petty tyrants.

Let's stick with the laws I know, which are Illinois - so here is Illinois' mattress law - that's in addition to the regulations that come out of our executive branch: http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio... (but hey, I'm just a lawyer, wtf do I know, right?)

Pluto is still a planet in Illinois - Just thought I's toss it in :)

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=SR&DocNum=46&GAID=10/

Well, if it was in article comments on the Internet, that's a whole new story... ;)

No one sells a car in the US with exclusive brake-by-wire, because nearly every state mandates the existence of a second braking system independent of the primary braking system. That's often the thing people call the "emergency brake," as compared to the "service brake." For IL, look at Article III at http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio.... They must be separated such that a failure in any one part does not leave the vehicle without brakes. IL also prescribes a maximum stopping distance from a couple of speeds.

I don't know if they actually every did it or not; but they managed to make enough noise that illinois introduced and passed legislation intended to stop them.

Based on the absence of either drone's-eye-view PETA releases or ground-level shots of triumphant hunters holding up birdshot-riddled drones, I'm inclined to think that it was two publicity seekers engaging in a codependent relationship, rather than anything actually hitting the air; but I wasn't able to authoritatively confirm or deny.

You are right but telling your congressman to support FASTR (Fair Access to Science and Technology Research) is much more useful. You can do so quite easily thanks to the EFF and Alliance for Taxpayer Access. FASTR would make federally funded research (non classified and funded by a federal agency with a budget over 100 million$) freely available after 6 months of publication. This would go far beyond the disappointing recent White House OSTP policy where the embargo is 1 year and doesn't include any resuse rights.

If you live in Illinois or California, please consider supporting similar legislation for state funded research. See
Open Access to Research Articles Act for Illinois and California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act.

Inconvenient Party affiliation omitted, twice in one day.

Back here we have a Democrat state senator Toni Harp from Connecticut trying to "Ban Kids From Using Arcade Guns." Now we have Democrat state senator Ira Silverstein of Illinois with another statist gem.

Could we please stop this game? When we're raging about Republicans there is no hesitation qualifying names with parties. I know it's inconvenient that all bad government isn't the fault of fundies, but pretending statists aren't a problem isn't helpful behavior.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=98&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=1614&GAID=12&SessionID=85&LegID=72466
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1874

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=98&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=1614&GAID=12&SessionID=85&LegID=72466
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1874

Sure, I can give you a link or two. Far from me to discourage a healthy dose of skepticism :p

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/

"When one person does agree to act for another in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids the fiduciary from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit in relation to the subject matter."

So, yes, if you just decided to just give this year's profits to charity and it's not obvious what that does for your investors, you might just get sued.

Also, for an actual law, you can check out stuff like Fiduciary Obligations Act

Note that as per section 1, ""Fiduciary" includes a trustee under any trust, expressed, implied, resulting or constructive executor, administrator, guardian, conservator, curator, receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, assignee for the benefit of creditors, partner, agent, officer of a corporation, public or private, public officer, or any other person acting in a fiduciary capacity for any person, trust or estate." My emphasis.

So, yeah, if you thought being a CEO meant free hand to do whatever you wish with other people's money, think again.

That said, note that there is leeway in exactly what is the best for the principal, i.e., best for the person whose money you're entrusted with. Nobody is forbidding you, for example, from whitewashing the company image with ads, PR or, yes, by playing the charity card, if you can make a case that you expected more profits as a result of it. There's a lot of 'oh, we care so much' act that basically is ok if you can make a case that a corporate asshole image would hurt your clients' interests more.

That said, also note that most of the big charity is actually private. A guy like Bill Gates is perfectly within his rights to spend his own money however he sees fit. Basically if you decide to just give 20 million of the company's money to charity, you might get sued, but if you can pull a 20 million salary as a CEO (and God knows some people got paid even more even to drive a company into the ground) and then give that money to charity, well, nobody can tell you what to do with your own money.

Also note that the rules are a bit different from non-profit organizations. Those are by definition not supposed to make a profit for anyone. So if an organization is registered as a charity, well, it's safe to say it won't be sued for actually spending its money on charity.

In Illinois, a law like this has already been signed, and will take effect on January.

Reading the text of that law, it doesn't ban employers from using packet sniffers.

They have precedent for such protections.

Read the full text of the law here

At least they cited the bill number. I hate it when news outlets don't tell you the bill and have to go searching for it.

no retailer, ANYWHERE, pays sales taxes on purchases you make

That may be true somewhere, but it isn't true in Illinois. Quoting the Illinois Department of Revenue: "Sales tax is a combination of “occupation” taxes that are imposed on sellers’ receipts and “use” taxes that are imposed on amounts paid by purchasers. Sellers owe the occupation tax to the department; they reimburse themselves for this liability by collecting use tax from the buyers."

And, 35 ILCS 120/2 "A tax is imposed upon persons engaged in the business of selling at retail tangible personal property ...".

In Illinois, at least, sales tax is quite clearly imposed upon the retailer, and not the retail purchaser. On a related note, when I was running a small business in Illinois I contacted the DOR and asked if I was obliged to collect sales tax from my customers. They advised me that I was under no obligation to collect sales tax, my only obligation was to pay it.

So what do you use to pay it? Is it, perhaps, paid from your business's revenue? Assuming it is, where are you obtaining revenue if not from your customers?

no retailer, ANYWHERE, pays sales taxes on purchases you make

That may be true somewhere, but it isn't true in Illinois. Quoting the Illinois Department of Revenue: "Sales tax is a combination of “occupation” taxes that are imposed on sellers’ receipts and “use” taxes that are imposed on amounts paid by purchasers. Sellers owe the occupation tax to the department; they reimburse themselves for this liability by collecting use tax from the buyers."

And, 35 ILCS 120/2 "A tax is imposed upon persons engaged in the business of selling at retail tangible personal property ...".

In Illinois, at least, sales tax is quite clearly imposed upon the retailer, and not the retail purchaser. On a related note, when I was running a small business in Illinois I contacted the DOR and asked if I was obliged to collect sales tax from my customers. They advised me that I was under no obligation to collect sales tax, my only obligation was to pay it.

Or ... the interwebs . . . even then I'll bet you 20$ you already know, more or less, everything not related to a particular license (as in you must study the rules in that area). Most of the stats have their compiled codes up for free on the web now. And most of the criminal codes are as simple as Illinois, like I said, you can't enforce the law if its not common knowledge.

The jargon of the Court is "lack of fair notice" and its a violation of your right to due process.

-GiH

From IL General Assembly's website
"(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or
(2) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to the fire department of any city, town, village or fire protection district a false alarm of fire, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such fire exists; or
(3) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to another a false alarm to the effect that a bomb or other explosive of any nature or a container holding poison gas, a deadly biological or chemical contaminant, or radioactive substance is concealed in such place that its explosion or release would endanger human life, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such bomb, explosive or a container holding poison gas, a deadly biological or chemical contaminant, or radioactive substance is concealed in such place; or
(4) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed; or
(5) Enters upon the property of another and for a lewd or unlawful purpose deliberately looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in it; or
(6) While acting as a collection agency as defined in the "Collection Agency Act" or as an employee of such collection agency, and while attempting to collect an alleged debt, makes a telephone call to the alleged debtor which is designed to harass, annoy or intimidate the alleged debtor; or
(7) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to the Department of Children and Family Services under Section 4 of the "Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act"; or
(8) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to the Department of Public Health under the Nursing Home Care Act or the MR/DD Community Care Act; or
(9) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to the police department or fire department of any municipality or fire protection district, or any privately owned and operated ambulance service, a false request for an ambulance, emergency medical technicianambulance or emergency medical technician paramedic knowing at the time there is no reasonable ground for believing that such assistance is required; or
(10) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report under Article II of "An Act in relation to victims of violence and abuse", approved September 16, 1984, as amended; or
(11) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to any public safety agency without the reasonable grounds necessary to believe that transmitting such a report is necessary for the safety and welfare of the public; or
(12) Calls the number "911" for the purpose of making or transmitting a false alarm or complaint and reporting information when, at the time the call or transmission is made, the person knows there is no reasonable ground for making the call or transmission and further knows that the call or transmission could result in the emergency response of any public safety agency; or
(13) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a threat of destruction of a school building or school property, or a threat of violence, death, or bodily harm directed against persons at a school, school function, or school event, whether or not school is in session."

1--causing a ruckus in public
2-4--intentionally sending false alarms to cops or first responders
5--peepin

The charge would actually be Reckless Homicide (see 720 ILCS 5/93), which actually is worse off than the Vehicular Homicide bill proposed back in '07 (died in the state Senate--Synopsis here, full text is gone now however)--Class 3 (or 2) Felony, versus a Class A Misdemeanor.

That aside, to get the DA's office to pursue the charges as a result of the civil action would be a bit tough. Keep in mind, civil cases require only a preponderance of the evidence, while a criminal action requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Timing is key in this case, and it would have to be proven that the driver was on Facebook (or otherwise using her phone) at the time or immediately prior to the incident; if there's enough doubt as to the accuracy of the timestamps and how they match up against each other, the DA might decline to prosecute, or try and plead it out and pray.

The charge would actually be Reckless Homicide (see 720 ILCS 5/93), which actually is worse off than the Vehicular Homicide bill proposed back in '07 (died in the state Senate--Synopsis here, full text is gone now however)--Class 3 (or 2) Felony, versus a Class A Misdemeanor.

That aside, to get the DA's office to pursue the charges as a result of the civil action would be a bit tough. Keep in mind, civil cases require only a preponderance of the evidence, while a criminal action requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Timing is key in this case, and it would have to be proven that the driver was on Facebook (or otherwise using her phone) at the time or immediately prior to the incident; if there's enough doubt as to the accuracy of the timestamps and how they match up against each other, the DA might decline to prosecute, or try and plead it out and pray.

Yet another death caused by fucking idiots who text while driving. Nuff said.

Yet another death caused by fucking idiots who are standing in the middle of the road, and not following the law by moving their vehicles to a safe area, then blaming everyone else.

Per: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+11+Art.+IV&ActID=1815&ChapterID=49&SeqStart=107600000&SeqEnd=109200000 (625 ILCS 5/11402) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11402) Sec. 11402. Motor vehicle accident involving damage to vehicle.

the old guy was supposed to move his car (and himself) off the road to safety and not be blocking the road. he is obviously standing in the road(on the edge is still on the road), otherwise, how did he get hit? what, are people driving on sidewalks in chicago now?

This is just like I hear on the news all the time - truck driver (18 wheeler, etc) assumed at fault because his truck crashes into a car, and kills someone. -- story clarified later: person in car thinks the world owes them something, are changing lanes with no turn signals, weaving, and slams on the brakes to avoid the car 9000 feet in front of them that tapped their brakes...truck runs their car over because trucks that are loaded down weighing 80,000lbs dont like to stop on a dime... oh, lets sue the truck driver, get the aclu/naacp involved because the person in car was black, and truck driver was white, etc, blah blah. arrgh!

How about some personal responsibility instead?

All cable or video providers in this State shall comply with the following customer service requirements and privacy protections. The provisions of this Act shall not apply to an incumbent cable operator prior to January 1, 2008. For purposes of this paragraph, an incumbent cable operator means a person or entity that provided cable services in a particular area under a franchise agreement with a local unit of government...

The date given there changed with a 2009 version of the law, and indicated Jan 1, 2007 as the date, which was before Comcast took over operations from Insight (thus making them NOT incumbent, until the current version). Interesting in the bit, is that they at least WERE required to maintain staffing 24/7...and because the relevant law has been updated, I guess they're no longer subject, which sucks for we consumers who would like to at least have some lube when we get fucked.

Linky to the legalese, if anyone cares...hosted on the IL General Assembly's page.

The main problem with the Illinois law is not that it limits free speech, but that it is ex-post facto sentencing.

No, it's not. From the text of the law (Public Act 096-0262):

[730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a) ...] The conditions of every parole and mandatory supervised release are that the subject:
[...]
(7.12) if convicted of a sex offense [...definition location...] committed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 96th General Assembly, refrain from accessing or using a social networking website [...definition location...];

[730 ILCS 5/5-6-3(a)] The conditions of probation and of conditional discharge shall be that the person:
[...]
(8.9) if convicted of a sex offense [...definition location...] committed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 96th General Assembly, refrain from accessing or using a social networking website [...definition location...];

[730 ILCS 5/5-6-3.1] (s) An offender placed on supervision for a sex offense [...definition location...] committed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 96th General Assembly shall refrain from accessing or using a social networking website [...definition location...].

There is nothing ex post facto about this law. It only applies to people who are convicted of crimes committed after the law takes effect.

davidh

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/96/096-0262.htm for what was passed.

That statute says exactly what I said.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K3-707
Please note part (c) second sentence of the section.
However, no person charged with violating this Section shall be convicted if such person produces in court satisfactory evidence that at the time of the arrest the motor vehicle was covered by a liability insurance policy in accordance with Section 7â'601 of this Code.

Which means... if you bring proof of insurance to traffic court, you will not get fined, which is what i have been saying from the beginning. The thing the cop rights is NOT a fine it is a summons to appear at court to determined whether you should be fined.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K3-707

Please note part (b).

I assumed that this was merely proposed and probably would not even get voted on but it actually passed.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0046&GAID=10&DocTypeID=SR&LegID=40752&SessionID=76&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=96

Actions
Date Chamber Action
2/3/2009 Senate Filed with Secretary
2/3/2009 Senate Referred to Assignments
2/10/2009 Senate Assigned to Executive
2/19/2009 Senate Be Adopted Executive; 012-000-000
2/19/2009 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of Secretary's Desk Resolutions February 20, 2009
2/26/2009 Senate Resolution Adopted

Well, entering is called trespassing when it's a civil offense; it's breaking and entering when it's a criminal offense. paeanblack has it right.

Not in Illinois. 720 ILCS 5/21-3 says, in relevant part:

Sec. 21-3. Criminal trespass to real property. (a) ... whoever: (1) knowingly and without lawful authority enters or remains within or on a building ... commits a Class B misdemeanor.

Illinois state law requires that disks be overwritten ten times before they may be scrapped (see Here for the law). Last year the Governor entered into a no-bid contract with a firm to scrub drives (also refurbish and sell) used electronics after a report found that almost no drives were being overwritten by many state agencies. See this pdf for more details.

In fact, here is the state law that governs this process: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=555&ChapAct=30%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A0605/&ChapterID=7&ChapterName=FINANCE&ActName=State+Property+Control+Act.

Thanks for finding that.

If you live in IL you can use this link:
http://capwiz.com/ala/il/state/main/?state=IL
To find out who your members in the general assembly are.

This is the person who presented the bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=95&MemberID=1182

And this person is a co-sponsor:
http://www.ilga.gov/house/rep.asp?GA=95&MemberID=1160

Here is the status of the bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=4380&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=&SessionID=51&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=95

So how do we organize some letter writing to voice concerns to our representatives?

Thanks for finding that.

If you live in IL you can use this link:
http://capwiz.com/ala/il/state/main/?state=IL
To find out who your members in the general assembly are.

This is the person who presented the bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=95&MemberID=1182

And this person is a co-sponsor:
http://www.ilga.gov/house/rep.asp?GA=95&MemberID=1160

Here is the status of the bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=4380&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=&SessionID=51&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=95

So how do we organize some letter writing to voice concerns to our representatives?

Thanks for finding that.

If you live in IL you can use this link:
http://capwiz.com/ala/il/state/main/?state=IL
To find out who your members in the general assembly are.

This is the person who presented the bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=95&MemberID=1182

And this person is a co-sponsor:
http://www.ilga.gov/house/rep.asp?GA=95&MemberID=1160

Here is the status of the bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=4380&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=&SessionID=51&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=95

So how do we organize some letter writing to voice concerns to our representatives?

Big content goes after colleges through funding bills
By John Timmer | Published: April 15, 2008 - 10:50PM CT
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080415-big-content-goes-after-college-p2p-through-funding-bills.html

Full Text of HB4380
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09500HB4380ham001&GA=95&SessionId=51&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=4380&GAID=9
Higher Education Committee
Filed: 4/1/2008

1 (c) Each institution to which subsection (a) of this
2 Section applies shall, by January 15 of each year, report to
3 the Board either (i) that the institution has not received 10
4 or more legally valid notices of infringement within the
5 preceding year from owners of infringed works or their
6 authorized agents or (ii) a detailed description of the
7 reasonable efforts the institution has taken to install and
8 implement a technology-based deterrent system under
9 subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this Section.

If you live/work in Illinois the following is the state law governing patent property. It is pretty common sense and I would not have a problem signing an agreement outside of Illinois that covered the same conditions. PROPERTY (765 ILCS 1060/) Employee Patent Act. (765 ILCS 1060/2) (from Ch. 140, par. 302) Sec. 2. Employee rights to inventions conditions). (1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this State and is to that extent void and unenforceable. The employee shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that his invention qualifies under this subsection. (2) An employer shall not require a provision made void and unenforceable by subsection (1) of this Section as a condition of employment or continuing employment. This Act shall not preempt existing common law applicable to any shop rights of employers with respect to employees who have not signed an employment agreement. (3) If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1984, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. (Source: P.A. 83493.) http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2238&ChapAct=765%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B1060%2F&ChapterID=62&ChapterName=PROPERTY&ActName=Employee+Patent+Act.

This bill has been bounced back and forth between the Illinois House and Senate for two years, without any final action being taken. Bill Status of HB0380 Spyware Prevent Initiative Act

Only Arkansas and Virginia have anything on the statute books, and the Virgina law has openings for the rights agencies you could drive a tank through. To begin, you have to prove "malacious intent."

2007 State Legislation Relating to Internet Spyware or Adware, An Act to amend and reenact 18.2-152.4 of the Code of Virginia, relating to computer trespass; spyware; penalty

I went looking for information regarding the Illinois stance.

WHEREAS, Real ID would provide little security benefit and
still leave identification systems open to insider fraud,
counterfeit documentation, and database failures; therefore,
be it

RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
NINETY-FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the Illinois General Assembly
supports the government of the United States in its campaign
against terrorism and affirms the commitment of the United
States that the campaign not be waged at the expense of
essential civil rights and liberties of citizens of this
country that are protected in the United States Constitution
and the Bill of Rights; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the members of the Illinois General Assembly
oppose any portion of the Real ID Act that violates the rights
and liberties guaranteed under the Illinois Constitution or the
United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; and
be it further

RESOLVED, That the Illinois General Assembly urges the
Illinois Congressional delegation in the United States

HJ0027 - 6 - LRB095 11206 DRH 31743 r

Congress to support measures to repeal the Real ID Act of 2005;
and be it further

RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be delivered to
President George W. Bush, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales,
Governor Rod R. Blagojevich, Senator Richard Durbin, Senator
Barack Obama, and each of the members of the Illinois
Congressional delegation.

Now that is from the very end of this document. There appears to be more from this search, and I am going to try to look through these before I leave for work.

Note: I had to remove the item line numbers to get past the lameness filter.

I went looking for information regarding the Illinois stance.

WHEREAS, Real ID would provide little security benefit and
still leave identification systems open to insider fraud,
counterfeit documentation, and database failures; therefore,
be it

RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
NINETY-FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the Illinois General Assembly
supports the government of the United States in its campaign
against terrorism and affirms the commitment of the United
States that the campaign not be waged at the expense of
essential civil rights and liberties of citizens of this
country that are protected in the United States Constitution
and the Bill of Rights; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the members of the Illinois General Assembly
oppose any portion of the Real ID Act that violates the rights
and liberties guaranteed under the Illinois Constitution or the
United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; and
be it further

RESOLVED, That the Illinois General Assembly urges the
Illinois Congressional delegation in the United States

HJ0027 - 6 - LRB095 11206 DRH 31743 r

Congress to support measures to repeal the Real ID Act of 2005;
and be it further

RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be delivered to
President George W. Bush, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales,
Governor Rod R. Blagojevich, Senator Richard Durbin, Senator
Barack Obama, and each of the members of the Illinois
Congressional delegation.

Now that is from the very end of this document. There appears to be more from this search, and I am going to try to look through these before I leave for work.

Note: I had to remove the item line numbers to get past the lameness filter.

Hope this clears things up for you and the OP.

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm

Governments do plenty of things that infringe on people's rights in order to try and curb the rate of murder. For example, the city of Chicago, Illinois, USA doesn't allow handguns. Even if you interpret the US Constitution as not allowing each individual person to own guns (as groups like the American Civil Liberties Union do) the Illinois State Constitution http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm/ explicitly provides for that, leaving little if any room for such interpretation. That seems like a way the government is screwing with people's constitutionally-provided rights -- but it's just not the federal government doing it.

I suppose you could say that the right to have a gun isn't as popular with some people, so fewer people care about that right being infringed, but it's still a constitutionally-stated right

...a honeypot targeted at discovering zero-day exploits...

This section of the Illinois Criminal Code was added on January 1, 2003 by Public Act 92-728 and defines an "unlawful communication device" as "any communication device which is capable of... facilitating the disruption... of a communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider..."

It furthermore makes it a criminal offense if a person knowingly "possesses, uses, manufactures, assembles, distributes, leases, transfers, or sells" an "unlawful communication device... for the commission of a theft of a communication service or to receive, disrupt, transmit, decrypt, or acquire... any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider, or to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider or from any lawful authority the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication".

...

From my reading of the law, "communication service provider" can be interpreted as "anyone who provides data transport anywhere along the path of the connection".

It is also a criminal offense if someone "possesses, uses, prepares, distributes, gives or otherwise transfers... plans or instructions for making or assembling an unlawful communication or access device..."

The penalties for violations of this section treat this as a Class A misdemeanor unless the infractions involve 10 or more "unlawful communication devices" in which case it is treated as a Class 4 felony. Cases involving 50 or more "unlawful communication devices" are treated as a Class 3 felony (the same as "aggravated battery", 2-5 years in prison). There is also a provision for civil actions with statutory damages of not less than $250.00 and not more than $10,000.00 for each "unlawful communication device."