Communications and Public Policy Director Ed Yohnka discussed the ACLU's concerns with the use of "stingray" technology by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) in a recent segment on WBEZ. Stingrays operate by mimicking a cellphone tower, and have the ability to access their owner's locations and other identifying information. Given the potential threat to privacy that the use of such technology by law enforcement has had in other states, the ACLU of Illinois will continue monitor the issue. Ed Yohnka stated:

“We know that this technology has been used in connection with protests in other places,” Yohnka said. “I don’t know whether or not that’s been used in Chicago. I would say that if this technology is being used to track people, if there are technologies that are being used to collect large swaths of communication, those are things that are very troubling and very wrong and I think people would rightly be concerned about them.”

Read the rest and listen to the segment.

Mark Wahlberg is already a famous movie star, but now he wants to expand that star power into the restaurant business.

The problem? He can’t get the required licenses to open up shop.

Why? Because when he was a teenager, he was involved in more than a few instances of criminal behavior, including assault and battery in several racially-charged attacks.  He pleaded guilty and served time in prison.

Since then, Wahlberg says he has turned his life around.  He says he was a teenager when this happened and that he’s grown up, and shouldn’t be punished for something he wouldn’t dream of doing today.  He’s outlined his charitable work and says he’s no longer the kid who had dozens of run-ins with the Boston Police Department.

Wahlberg says he’s a model citizen and hopes that Massachusetts sees it the same way.  He’s asked for a formal pardon for his crimes.

Wahlberg may be a household name, but his situation is far from one known by just the rich and famous.  Across the country, adults are being limited by crimes they committed as children. The difference is they don’t have the high-powered attorneys or headline-grabbing names that can get their issues to the front of their governor.

Some may argue that people should pay for their crimes. There’s no disagreement there. But should adults who committed crimes as children really be blocked from getting a student loan, or some assistance with housing or a job -- simply because they did something stupid as a teen?  Especially with the racial disparity in the criminal justice system, people of color who have "paid" for their "youthful indiscretions" may pay for them repeatedly through lost opportunities.

There should be a punishment for a crime, but we should make sure that punishment fits the crime.  Too often, it does not.

People change.  Kids will do things they will regret as adults.  They should get the opportunity to live their lives once they’ve paid for their crimes, and it shouldn’t take star power to get this accomplished. This is why the ACLU of Illinois supports making it easier -- even automatic -- for some criminal records to be expunged, especially if the person does not get in any further trouble.

If it is good enough for Marky Mark, it should be good enough for all.

This past week, both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly passed a measure that closes loopholes in Illinois' eavesdropping law, the Associated Press reports. The ACLU of Illinois has a history of fighting for the First Amendment right to make an audio recording of public officials performing a public duty in a public place -- in ACLU v. Alvarez-- which had been illegal under what had been the strictest eavesdropping law in the country. In 2012, an appellate court ruled to allow the recording of public officials for ACLU purposes. Then in January, the eavesdropping law went to trial before the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled the whole of the law to be unconstitutional. The bill clarifies any remaining ambiguity in the current eavesdropping law by restoring two-party consent, but also exempts police from having to obtain a warrant prior to eavesdropping for certain types of crimes:

The American Civil Liberties Union praised the legislation for restoring private-conversation protections and for making it legal to record police officers while on duty – a point of contention that helped fuel the eavesdrop debate during the May 2012 NATO summit in Chicago, which drew throngs of protesters.

But it objected to an expansion of the kinds of investigations in which police may eavesdrop without a warrant – at least initially. The bill allows police – with only permission from the state’s attorney – to surreptitiously record conversations for 24 hours when investigating such serious crimes as murder, the most heinous sexual assaults, kidnapping, human trafficking and others.

That, ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka said, is “the kind of unchecked police authority that we’ve always resisted in this country.” When citizens allow such intrusion, it’s typically been only after approval by an impartial judge.

Read the rest of the article.