The frequency response of most microphones (before DSP filtering) does not perfectly cut-off above 20 khz. I suppose if you were really paranoid you could walk around blasting exceptionally loud noise around and above this freq for privacy ;). Although your local dogs might not be too happy
Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
31–40 of 293 posts
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#32> If you're going to conduct criminal activity, do it in the privacy of your own home. > That was the original intention of the 4th amendment. Wat. The intention of the 4th amendment was to enable criminal activity, but confine it to private property? Not to protect citizens' privacy from government snooping without probable cause? The intent was to prevent the executive branch from indiscriminately "searching" (and…
A bit of a and a bit of b. The intention was to protect private property from government snooping without probable cause. It was a way to balance property rights against the governments' law-enforcement powers.
Could you qualify your use of "private property" to account for the many ways in which the "property rights" are assessed in terms of the 4A, e.g. in terms of surveillance?
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Clinton (DLC) Democrats love surveillance even more than Bushes. I'd disagree. The complete and absolute infatuation with surveillance by both the Bush's and the Clinton's is the same.
Pessimizer, I think you are wrong, I agree with Stanislav. Republicans don't believe in the right to privacy, they use that as the reason why Texas should be able to restrict dildo sales (among many other things :-)), for instance, and conservatives use their disbelief in privacy to argue they should be able to legislate against consensual sex practices they don't like. Dems generally do support a right to privacy in…
Instead of depending on generalizations, I'd say that without Clarence Thomas and Scalia (and also Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter), it would be legal today to record what goes on inside your home without a warrant. So to generalize about conservatives or liberals in this case would probably not be helpful because both the liberal-leaning and the conservative-leaning justices split. What is absolutely true is that the two most right-wing justices were on the side of the Fourth.
All I'm saying is 1) that the next person to appoint a Supreme Court justice, and the last person to appoint a Supreme Court justice, are both New Democrats who seem hostile to Fourth Amendment defences against surveillance, and 2) that the author of the opinion that protects us from total audio surveillance, and the fiercest defender of the Fourth in the Court is the one currently being replaced.
Take it as you will; I'm not hopeful at all, but there's nothing I can do about it anyway. I honestly believe that any justice that Emperor Trump would put on the court would be more likely to preserve that view than not, and the opposite would be true for any Clinton appointment.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Clinton (DLC) Democrats love surveillance even more than Bushes. I'd disagree. The complete and absolute infatuation with surveillance by both the Bush's and the Clinton's is the same.
Pessimizer, I think you are wrong, I agree with Stanislav. Republicans don't believe in the right to privacy, they use that as the reason why Texas should be able to restrict dildo sales (among many other things :-)), for instance, and conservatives use their disbelief in privacy to argue they should be able to legislate against consensual sex practices they don't like. Dems generally do support a right to privacy in…
Conservatives have a pretty obvious hole in their logic, where they both want to legislate morality and reduce the state's ability to enforce such legislation. The modern liberal on the other hand is much more single minded in the expansion of federal responsibility, and logically granting the powers necessary to accomplish said responsibilities (firearm registration, clipper chip, etc). Pretending that it isn't a false choice for a moment, I'd prefer the confused conservative position.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's true we are moving into a scary world pretty much like 1984 where everything you do is monitored all the time. Well, not everything. Plant a GPS tracker on a police car or a bug in the restroom at FBI headquarters and you'll soon discover some troubling asymmetries in the modern post-privacy paradigm.
I was thinking the same thing. If no warrant is required then anybody can record whatever they want, right? edit I can't figure out how this could possibly be legal. It seems to me the rule for recording conversations is 1 party consent. [1] There is no way the FBI is participating in those conversations it's recording. I have no problem with law enforcement having special powers, but, isn't that special power a warr…
Whether a warrant is required is a federal Constitutional question. Requiring consent to record a conversation is a statutory creation (and state law at that). State law doesn't define what does or does not violate the Constitution.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#36If that's true we are moving into a scary world pretty much like 1984 where everything you do is monitored all the time. Add voice, face recognition, surveillance drones, cheap data storage and AI to the mix it seems pretty soon everything you do in a public place will be recorded and analyzed. And all this can be done fully automated. I hope people will recognize that some laws need to change. Surveillance makes sen…
We are moving in a scary world... technology is nice but it makes monitoring too easy. As I see it, updated laws is the only thing that can save us... One of so many examples would be to get rid of car license plates.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bit of a and a bit of b. The intention was to protect private property from government snooping without probable cause. It was a way to balance property rights against the governments' law-enforcement powers.
Could you qualify your use of "private property" to account for the many ways in which the "property rights" are assessed in terms of the 4A, e.g. in terms of surveillance?
Personally, I don't think the 4th amendment has much to say about surveillance. It protects four enumerated property rights: houses, persons, papers, and effects. If you have a property right in something, the government needs a warrant. If you don't, it doesn't.
I don't think surveillance is good, but I'm strongly opposed to twisting the interpretation of the Constitution to fight in courts battles that should be fought in the political realm. We have a real problem with excessive surveillance and over-policing in the US (but also in the UK and other places, to be fair). But the people want safety and security. That's democracy.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why pretend that the privacy of your home is so special? The only thing keeping laser microphones from being aimed at all of our windows is a 5-4 decision in Kylio v. US, and Scalia is dead, and Clinton is going to be appointing the next Supreme Court justice. Clinton (DLC) Democrats love surveillance even more than Bushes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_microphone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._Unit…
> The only thing keeping laser microphones... The legality has nothing to do with it, as it has been demonstrated over and over that law enforcement will employ methods that can charitably be described as "legally questionable" and then attempt to hide it (see stingray). What is stopping them is limitations imposed by the physical world - both in number of windows and the fact that laser mics don't work the way they'…
Laser mics can get better, and I've got a window in every room but the closets.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#39Anyone have a copy of the video working? Whoever made this site should have their contract dumped off the bridge in the background.. Edit: Working with all adblock and flashblock completely disabled. Edit: Clarify what should be dumped.
> Whoever made this site should be dumped off the bridge in the background.. What exactly did you mean by that? CBSLOCAL.com editor? should be murdered? why?
Hahaha. Can't take a joke? You PC, bro?
I was referring to abuse of popup ads and the enormity of the data; over 4000 requests spreading across over 30 mb after a 1:49 video is finished...
Obviously, nobody would dump anyone off a bridge for such a thing; but their duties should be... :-)
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#40> If you're going to conduct criminal activity, do it in the privacy of your own home. > That was the original intention of the 4th amendment. Wat. The intention of the 4th amendment was to enable criminal activity, but confine it to private property? Not to protect citizens' privacy from government snooping without probable cause? The intent was to prevent the executive branch from indiscriminately "searching" (and…
I watched the end of this video and had to do a double take (watch?). Said out loud 'wat'!, came here and found out that I still have never had an original thought. Thanks!