Wisconsin City Decides It’s OK To Eavesdrop On Private Conversations In Its City Hall
from the totally-normal-stuff dept
The city of Green Bay, Wisconsin feels no private conversation in city hall should go unheard. The city feels there’s nothing wrong with installing overhead mics to snoop on citizens who might be congregating in the hall’s halls.
“I think it’s pretty customary to have the kind of surveillance systems that we have here,” Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich told FOX 11 on Tuesday.
“Pretty customary.” Huh. This is the first I’ve heard of this surveillance variety. The same goes for the ACLU, which tends to stay on top of domestic surveillance efforts.
“This is the first sort of city hall or political location that I’ve heard doing something like this,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst for the ACLU in Washington D.C., who has been with the nonprofit since five weeks before 9/11.
Someone with nearly 22 years experience vs. someone who’s only been in this position since 2019. There’s nothing “customary” about this. If there was, we’d have heard of it.
Whether it’s normal or abnormal, the city has offered a justification for this desire to eavesdrop. And it’s the usual excuse: national city hall security.
City officials say microphones were put on the hallway ceilings on the first and second levels, outside the city clerk’s office, the city council chambers, and the mayor’s office within the past two years due to threatening interactions involving members of the public and staff.
The statement fails to clarify whether these “interactions” involved staff threatening members of the public or vice versa. But let’s assume the worst: it was the people threatening their representatives. There are ways of handling this that don’t involve listening in on every conversation between members of the public while in the city hall building.
Sure, it’s true there’s almost no expectation of privacy in public buildings, but the expectation is tied to the word “reasonable.” If no other city in the nation is doing this, the public would reasonably expect the government isn’t installing overhead mics to listen to what they’re talking about, especially when what they’re discussing likely contains criticism of government officials and/or plans to challenge legislative efforts, etc.
Deploying mics creates a chilling effect where people inside city hall won’t feel comfortable airing complaints about city lawmakers and/or organizing efforts to protest proposed laws.
The city issued a memo (received from the state’s legal reps) about these unexpected mics late last year. Following questions from Fox reporters, the memo [PDF] appears to have been revised. But it’s not clear what has been revised. The only thing pointing to a rewrite is the “revised February 7, 2023” clause added to the header.
The memo points out Wisconsin is a one-party state — something that does not require the consent of the recorded. It was written in response to Senator Andre Jaque, who apparently raised questions about the mic installations last October. The city’s attorneys say there’s no definite answer as to the legality of these recording devices. All of it depends on the “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The government of Green Bay has one definition. Most likely, the city’s residents have their own take on “reasonable.”
The state’s lawyers, despite offering what appears to be a tacit blessing for the city hall mics, are hesitant to completely sign off on the installations.
In a setting like a governmental building, it is possible for a person to engage in a public or private conversation. For example, it is likely that a private conversation meets the factors described in Duchow. and provides the parties with a reasonable expectation of privacy if the conversation is at low volume, away from passersby, and between a small group of people with the expectation that no one will report what was said. In particular,a person is more likely to have a reasonable expectation of privacy if he or she takes steps to maintain privacy but a device is still able to record the conversation. On the other hand, a person engaging in a loud conversation with strangers or a large group of people is unlikely to have a reasonable expectation that the conversation will remain private.
Since the memo does not say everything is in the legal clear, the rep asking for answers understandably believes this should halt the surveillance program until all the facts are in.
“I think the memo, the updated memo, that I provided has pretty clear discussion of it,” said Jacque, who says he has contacted Brown County’s district attorney about the situation. “There is certainly the state statute that is cited. At the very least you’d think that would compel some sort of a pause on the recording.”
But that’s not what’s happening. The most recent reporting shows the mayor is continuing to offer his full support for surveillance the state’s lawyers have suggested might not be completely in the constitutional clear. And there are more concerning facts leaking out about Green Bay’s city hall-focused surveillance efforts.
To start with, it’s always on and always monitored.
The city says the police department has access to live feeds of the city hall surveillance system, but city staff does not continuously monitor the feeds.
Second, the city government has been performing this surreptitious surveillance for years.
In its press release, the city also notes there has been an audio recording device inside the lobby of the policy department for about almost a decade and an audio recording device has been in the Metro Transit Lobby since 2009.
At no point has the public been informed about these. The city says it will place signs informing city hall visitors their conversations are being recorded. Fourteen years after the fact, the city will also let people know about the transit lobby mics.
But a lot is still unknown about the mics the city says are completely above board, even if all the details are still submerged under layers of proactive opacity. City residents were never informed the mics would be installed. They never got a chance to publicly discuss the purchase of the system, which was paid for with their tax dollars. And, most surprisingly, many city council members were unaware the system even existed, which shows just how far under the radar this “pretty customary” program has flown.
If the city reps in the know can’t be honest about what they’re imposing on the people they’re serving, residents will rightfully have no reason to trust them. This is shady as fuck. And those who do know — now that they’ve been caught out — are doing a terrible job trying to pretend this isn’t a domestic surveillance anomaly.
Filed Under: city hall, eric genrich, green bay, microphones, privacy, surveillance, wisconsin
Comments on “Wisconsin City Decides It’s OK To Eavesdrop On Private Conversations In Its City Hall”
FOIA request, all recordings of those coming and going from the mayors office.
I’m sure no one ever mentioned a bribe outright, but if we have the recordings we shoudl make sure.
Well, surveillance TV cameras are everywhere these days and many/most have microphone audio capability.
And elected politicians & their underlings are especially attentive to their own personal comfort and security, at taxpayer expense.
It’s highly misleading to assert that the “The city of Green Bay, Wisconsin” took this action; the citizens of that city had nothing to do with it — place the blame directly upon the specific government individuals who are directly guilty.
But this makes sense because if a certain person, let’s call him Aaron comes by City Hall in Green Bay, they’ll want to know if he wants to stay in Green Bay while he’s using the facilities
I can see it now…
A group of people enter city hall, discussing “bombing plans”, “have you got the dynamite”, and other triggering words.
Police go on high alert.
The theater group turn over their scripts.
Although the terms “one-party consent” and “two-party consent” are common simplications, reality is more complicated: “two-party” usually means “all-party”, and “consent” might just mean “notification”. (And sometimes using a recording in court has different requirements than simply making a recording; and it might be legal to record criminal threats or police interactions without notification.)
Anyway, those “audio is being recorded” signs they’re planning to install would be legally sufficient in most states, but I hope this doesn’t become normal.
Re: More "single-party" clarification
In most, if not all, states, “single-party consent” to record a conversation, whether in person or over the phone, means that anyone who is a party to the conversation can legally record it without running afoul of anti-wiretapping laws.
In this case, those doing the recording and listening are not parties to the conversation, and in most, maybe all, states this would be considered illegal under the anti-wiretapping laws.
Maybe the city government needs to get a legal opinion from someone other than their “we aim to please” lap dogs.
Re: Re:
This isn’t really true, and it’s often the case that a non-participant is recording—for example, if you’re talking to a customer service agent and the company or a supervisor is “eavesdropping”. Also remember that “consent” often doesn’t mean “consent” here, even if that’s what the law says. Courts seem to think that continuing the conversation after finding out it’s being recorded counts as consent.
So, if there’s a notice about the audio recording and one person involved in the conversation saw it (or “should’ve seen it”, probably), that might be enough. It depends on the state, but I very much doubt that third-party recording with notification is illegal in “most” states.
Re: Re: Re:
In this case, the agent, the supervisor, and the company itself are likely all considered as one “party” to the conversation. And when notification or continuation of the conversation counts as consent is very much up to interpretation.
Of course, what the laws actually say, and how the courts interpret and enforce those laws can be radically different.
Bring a radio
Bring a radio, and blast out music from it at high volume. You can have any conversation that is quieter without worry of being overheard.
It has the added bonus of abusing what the cops do, making sure no recording of your conversation can legally be repeated to anyone else, or else they risk bringing down the full force of the Recording industry.
Re:
Good way to spite the nosy mayor and anyone else involved but I don’t thin I want to normalize that tactic for cops to use.
Re: Re:
One quick way to get something declared illegal that the cops abuse, is to use it yourself.
Eh, they’d likely just carve out a special exemption for “law enforcement” purposes and get on with making it illegal for everyone else.
It's rare to hide information that you think makes you look good
But a lot is still unknown about the mics the city says are completely above board, even if all the details are still submerged under layers of proactive opacity. City residents were never informed the mics would be installed. They never got a chance to publicly discuss the purchase of the system, which was paid for with their tax dollars. And, most surprisingly, many city council members were unaware the system even existed, which shows just how far under the radar this “pretty customary” program has flown.
‘What we did was in no way problematic or questionable, that’s why we did it without telling any of the people paying for it or even those that work for the city until after we got caught.’
Whether this is novel or not, we’re going to be seeing more of it. While it may be true that recording conversations is unusual, security camera deployments generally are not. I manage the deployment at a small college, and I can tell you that over the last 10 years the quality of this cameras has improved immensely.
Where before you’d get a silent grainy picture of maybe 1024×768, audio recording is now a standard feature, along with 4K resolutions and greatly improved dark imaging.
Re:
In general, the reason for the previously silent surveillance video was due to audio recording being illegal, which it generally still is.
As was mentioned, there are different levels of “expectation of privacy” in different situations, but typically in any publicly accessible place, recording any conversation to which you are not a party is illegal, and the proscriptions will usually be found in the anti-wiretapping laws. A private college may be able to get around these prohibitions, but it would likely be a very grey legal area.
Re: Re:
…. No.
Audio recordings are not generally illegal, now or previously
Depends heavily upon who’s recording and where
No no no. It’s a one party state, sure, but not a zero party state. One of the participants must still consent. I believe they’re guilty of a class H felony here – see Wisconsin statute 968.31. And they should be prosecuted.
Also, every person whose conversation was illegally intercepted is entitled to the higher of $1000 or $100 per day, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees. (Assuming sovereign immunity doesn’t come into play, which it might.)
Speaking of lawyers….
Cue the attorneys who might have good cause to believe that their attorney/client privilege was rendered null and void. I’m not speaking about criminal defense lawyers, those are over in the court house. I’m speaking about lawyers and clients discussing such matters as permits, licenses, council meeting agendas, and so on.
This might prove to be more than just embarrassing for Green Bay, it might also get rather costly. Certainly it will get more ugly before it goes in any other direction.
USA..
Under Surveillance Always
Thanks for sharing such an informative and Fantastic post,I bookmarked this page and will get through all your posts.Keep sharing such nice posts
Priviledged Communication
There is a heightened expectation expectation in a court house because privileged and sensitive communication takes place. Clients talk to their lawyers and parties in criminal or civil cases talk with other parties in public spaces. What would prevent a DA from accessing private communication for their own benefit or a dishonest staff member from leaking the information to a third party. A court house is not similar with other public buildings when it comes to expectation of privacy.
The city already has a remedy for objectionable behavior. There are police stationed in the court house.
If the mics are wireless, then the transmission can be jammed.
Jamming part 15 wireless mics does not break FCC rules.
Jamming part 15 devices is legal, as a part 15 device has to accept whatever interference it runs into.
That is why, for example, it does not break FCC rules to jam radar or lidar speed guns, though it will be against state laws in several states to jam lidar or radar.
There are forms of jamming that do not break FCC rules, but would break state laws.
Reminder
No expectation of privacy in a public facility.
Re:
I don’t think you are aware of what that actually means and it certainly doesn’t encompass secret surveillance in a public place. That statement is usually meant for instances of incidental observations, like overhearing a loud conversation or someone taking a picture with people in the background.
What’s worse, since it was the government that did it they encroached on peoples 4A rights since they surreptitiously monitored people.
It all comes down to people expecting a reasonable amount of privacy even when they are in public, especially in a city hall, unless it’s publicly stated that the facility may be monitored by video or sound.
Re: Re:
I don’t know about this specific building but most government building have notice that they are using security cameras etc.
You’re in a publicly building. I have no problem with them listening to me, feel free. Just like I have the right to record them, and will fight any case of being stopped from recording them, they have the right to record me. They are public officials in a public facility carrying out public business.
It goes both ways.
Re: Re: Re:
The whole point was they had no notices and the audio-surveillance was surreptitious.
But this is not about you and your preferences or the public officials, it’s about private citizens and that there actually is an expectation of reasonable privacy in public. If the private citizens visiting the City Hall knew they where monitored they would have changed their behavior and perhaps taken their conversation elsewhere.
As I said, you don’t really understand what is meant by “No expectation of privacy in a public facility” because that is predicated on actually informing the public about the listening/monitoring devices, otherwise the government was ignoring the 4th amendment rights of those being recorded – regardless of where it took place. This was established by Katz v. United States in 1967.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, I simply don’t expect privacy in public. I understand public is public and don’t make societal demands on others for my own mentality.
It goes back to “if you don’t want to see me naked don’t look in my window”.
if you don’t want to be heard when in public, including public facilities such as government buildings and libraries and museums and senate facilities etc, go talk at home. In your car. Etc.
Being recorded in your B&B or hotel room is an invasion of privacy.
Being recorded in a public facility is not, even if you think it is or should be.
Because the same right they have to record me is the right I have to record them.
Re: Re: Re:3
But that’s not what we are actually talking about, we are talking about private citizens in a City Hall being secretly recorded by the government without a warrant. It’s a clear 4A violation.
Take that up with the SCOTUS, not me. I can surmise that you didn’t look up the case I referenced, Katz v. United States:
1. The Government's eavesdropping activities violated the privacy upon which petitioner justifiably relied while using the telephone booth, and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 389 U. S. 350-353.(a) The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements. Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 365 U. S. 511. P. 389 U. S. 353.(b) Because the Fourth Amendment protects people, rather than places, its reach cannot turn on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure. The "trespass" doctrine of Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, and Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129, is no longer controlling. Pp. 389 U. S. 351, 389 U. S. 353.2. Although the surveillance in this case may have been so narrowly circumscribed that it could constitutionally have been authorized in advance, it was not in fact conducted pursuant to the warrant procedure which is a constitutional precondition of such electronic surveillance. Pp. 389 U. S. 354-359.369 F.2d 130, reversed.And that is a fallacy, because the government has less rights to record you than the other way around due to the 4A.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, I did not look up the case. But a quick glimpse of your post says all I need to move on with this.
“telephone booth”
A telephone BOOTH is a private enclosed space. Whereas a telephone stand is open to the public.
I can not legally record you inside the booth. I can legally record you in the open air on public, or public access, property.
In neither case may I record the line itself.
Where such disagreements stem from is visible activity.
I’m a strong supporter of private property rights. But equally a strong supporter of public access.
I have every right to stand in the window of my private residence completely naked and will fight for that right to the Supreme Court.
If the window is not covered, you have the right to film me from the street. And I will defend that right of yours to the Supreme Court.
Government buildings are public property. You have no right to privacy in public. Your notions otherwise don’t change that.
(As a side note, every person wishing to record or film in government buildings, including courts, should be willing to stand up and fight back in courts to have that right. There must be an end to “no filming” signs in government buildings).
hanks for sharing. It is very helpful for me and also informative for all those users who will come to read.
https://www.5starlegalfunding.com/