720 Fig. Compiled Stat. 5/26-4(d)(4): A violation of Illinois` video recording laws if the victim is under the age of 18 or if the offender is a person required to register as a sex offender is considered a Class 3 felony. Spyware under Illinois` new law: Previously, you could get away with spyware spying. The old Illinois law had a hook on “simultaneous” spying and the delay between copied emails or recorded keystrokes. Many lawsuits were thwarted by the fact that the information was not “spied on” at the same time, but stored and later passed on to the spy. However, the new law on wiretapping is very clear. It is prohibited “to secretly record, record or transcribe a private electronic communication in which he is not involved, unless done so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(3). If this law had been in effect when Paula copied and forwarded Barry`s emails, Paula would have been cut off. Crime: Wiretapping is a Class 4 crime – 1-3 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $25,000. The trial court delivered a summary verdict to Burton and Joan Grant (James` lawyers). The trial court said this was not an ordinary case of “intermarital eavesdropping” (they have a term for this at the federal level: “intermarital eavesdropping”).
In this case, it was different. Here, James didn`t record Lynn to tarnish Hurn for divorce. James greeted the child and Lynn was on the call. The trial court said James` “wiretapping” fell within an exception to the law: a commercial exemption in the case where the recordings are made in the ordinary course of business. As a parent, the court argued that part of James` business was about knowing what was going on in his son`s life, and listening to your own child`s phone conversations is perfectly legal. even if it`s the other parent on the other end of the line. If the recordings were legal, then the release of the recordings by Burton and Joan to the G.A.L. was also legal.
For a detailed discussion of federal and state archival laws, see www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/RECORDING.pdf. Violations of wiretap and video recording laws are punishable as crimes punishable by one to three years in prison and a fine of up to $25,000, with heavier penalties for subsequent violations. 720 illustrations compiled Stat. 5/14-4; 730 Fig. Statistics compiled § 5-4.5-45, -50. In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit for ACLU v. Alvarez vs. Cook County Attorney Anita Alvarez to block the prosecution of ACLU employees for recording police officers performing their duties in public places, one of the group`s longstanding surveillance missions.  On March 2, 2012, Justice Stanley Sacks declared Illinois` wiretapping law unconstitutional and could criminalize “completely innocent conduct.”  In November 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against this decision.  The other case is Barry Epstien v.
Paula Epstein, No. 14 C 8431. Barry and Paula Epstein lived in marital bliss. Until they don`t. In June 2007, Paula retrieved Barry`s computer and contacted his email system. She created a “rule” to forward a copy of EACH of Barry`s emails to her own email account. Barry`s email program conscientiously sent Paula a copy of every email Barry sent or received. However, the program did not send the copies to Paula until hours, or sometimes months, or even years after Barry was sent or received. Paula has received copies of ALL of Barry`s emails for years. Things got worse and in May 2011, Paula filed for divorce. Paula`s email program was discontinued in March 2012. In October 2014, Barry`s divorce attorney suggested the discovery, requesting “all communications, including emails and photos, allegedly related to infidelity, as claimed by PAULA EPSTEIN.” Paula spoke to her lawyer about the forwarded emails created in response to Barry`s request.
Barry panicked. Barry sued Paula under federal law for violating ECPA and he sued Paula`s divorce lawyer for publishing the ill-gotten emails (in response to Barry`s discovery request – go to character). Barry could not sue the Illinois law because the law had been ruled unconstitutional and the new law had not yet gone into effect. The Federal Court dismissed Barry`s lawsuit on the basis that copying and transfer efforts were hampered by this delay between copying and transmission and, since the document was not “simultaneous,” “did not fall within the definition of `wiretapping.`” To compound the harm, the court found that Paula had not violated federal wiretapping law when she received the emails and that her lawyer could not be punished for publishing them. Ouch. 720 Fig. Statistics compiled 5/26‐4(d)(2): Violation of video recording laws under 720 Compiled Stat. 5/26-4 (a) ‐ (a-6) is considered a Class 4 felony punishable by imprisonment for 1 to 3 years, probation and fines of up to $25,000. SB1342 makes changes to the original wording of the Interception Act, adding that to commit a crime, a person must “secretly” record.
 The law`s proponents, Elaine Nekritz and Kwame Raoul, argue that the law respects citizens` right to record in public.  The Old Illinois Act: The Illinois Act was amended in 2014, so if you`re doing any research, be careful. Interception is still a crime under 720 ILCS 5/14-1. The old law criminalized the recording of EVERY conversation without everyone`s consent. Federal law and most states have a “one-party consent” rule. Illinois does not follow this rule – Illinois is a “consent of all parties” jurisdiction. If you recorded your child at a football game and witnessed the conversation of two other parents. They listened.
Most of this law (like most of the current law) was intended to prevent citizens from recording or tapping the police. The old law was intended to remedy a situation where criminal gangs placed “bugs” in police headquarters to keep abreast of police activities and planned raids. However, it was so widespread that it was used by police (and prosecutors and judges) to prevent citizens from recording activity in open places (such as courtrooms and city streets). The old law was found to be unconstitutionally overbroad in People v. Melongo and People v. Clark on March 24, 2014. The current law, for example, allows residents to record interactions with police, but retains the “consent of all parties” provisions and introduces an unclear definition of “private conversation.” The law says: 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. 5/26-4 (d) (3): Knowingly distributing or authorizing the distribution of video and live video obtained by methods that violate Illinois` video recording laws is considered a Class 3 felony punishable by 2 to 5 years in prison, probation and fines of up to $25,000. Following Melongo and Clark`s decisions, the state legislature drafted a bill to amend the wiretapping law to make it constitutional.