Slashdot Mirror
Chicago Is Tracking Kids Awaiting Trial With GPS Monitors That Can Call, Record Them Without Consent (theappeal.org)
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."
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.
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.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
The kid is accused of armed robbery. The kid gets to stay out of jail while awaiting trial. I understand the "if you have nothing to hide then why worry" argument, but this isn't just some random person. Truly, if he has nothing to hide then no problem. But he's probably a gang banger who is going to brag about his crimes to his homies.
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.
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?
So you're OK with guilty until proven innocent? You also think most people understand their "actual" rights? And a minor? If he had money and bailed out they would have to get a warrant just to listen to phone etc. But you have decided, based solely on the fact that he was charged, he's "probably an asshole who needs to be locked away for decades" so why bother with due process? And a minor? Mind boggling.
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 many hours of audio can a 10 TB HD hold again?
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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."
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
These are also people that are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Walking while black at the same time a crime happens anywhere. You most be unaware just how often this happens.
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.
The last Republican mayor of Chicago was elected 90 years ago. There are more Socialists than Republicans in the city council.
He's awaiting trial for ARMED ROBBERY. He OUGHT to be in JAIL.
Chicago voters are rolling over in their graves.
Have gnu, will travel.
Seriously, if this is a huge civil nightmare, then throw these kids in jail. Issue solved.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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?
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,
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?
"The cause of fear is ignorance."
Here's also what Wikipedia has to say about civil liberties and minors:
"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.O., 469 U.S. 325, 333 (1985) (holding that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials); see also California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626-27 (1991) (implicitly recognizing Fourth Amendment rights of minors but finding no violation).
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
Very true on the lack of privacy/dignity you have when locked up.
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.
Yes, in a court of law they are innocent until proven guilty. Until then, they are not considered anything but guilty.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.