31–40 of 76 posts
paid for in full with a grant from DHS That's the bit I was not expecting. I was expecting this to be about curbing crime on public transit. e.g. audio evidence for stabbings and drug deals but given the funding source perhaps more about preparation for something else? Maybe one of these conflicts? [0] I'm curious now. Given how long ago this started there must be more stories by now. [0] - https://wikiless.org/wiki/…
I would argue right to privacy until riding enough public transport and hitting enough incidents that make you wish someone was watching. Some incidents: 1. A man as red as a tomato with anger yelling at the top of his lungs that he was going to kill a woman and following her out the door at Chicago’s blue line. 2. A woman begging with a toddler-aged child that was constantly drowsy / appeared sedated on a line multi…
What actually increases safety and one of the reason public transport was / felt safer in the past is more personal. If there are train guards on the ride or platform managers at the station, they can actually intervene. No surveillance necessary. But that obviously requires way more public transport funding.
I'm curious what the (presumably delusional) for case for this is. Like, why would anyone think this would even be useful? Is it to combat crime? It says something vague in the article about "rider safety" but I don't really get that. What sort of incident would require hearing conversations between riders? Do they want this so that if one person verbally harasses another rider they can prove it? It just seems like t…
It's cover-your-ass blame-avoidance, like most things that public entities do. It's the preemptive answer to "why didn't you stop this bad behavior", so they can be seen to have taken some measure against it. Any resulting misuse is out of scope.
We had the recording but didn’t listen to it sounds worse than we can’t determine if that conversation actual took place on our vehicle.
This is also an argument for bombing ordinary citizens.
I'm curious what the (presumably delusional) for case for this is. Like, why would anyone think this would even be useful? Is it to combat crime? It says something vague in the article about "rider safety" but I don't really get that. What sort of incident would require hearing conversations between riders? Do they want this so that if one person verbally harasses another rider they can prove it? It just seems like t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's cover-your-ass blame-avoidance, like most things that public entities do. It's the preemptive answer to "why didn't you stop this bad behavior", so they can be seen to have taken some measure against it. Any resulting misuse is out of scope.
I do not see it as any different than individuals doing cover your ass blame avoidance too. See home cameras, dash camera, bicycle helmet cameras, etc.
Centralized eavesdropping of all conversations in public spaces is really bad.
Put the same microphone surveillance in private jets and yachts, then I'll be okay with this
I'm curious what the (presumably delusional) for case for this is. Like, why would anyone think this would even be useful? Is it to combat crime? It says something vague in the article about "rider safety" but I don't really get that. What sort of incident would require hearing conversations between riders? Do they want this so that if one person verbally harasses another rider they can prove it? It just seems like t…
I agree that the costs far outweigh the benefits here, but there’s clearly a legitimate use. If you’ll remember the Bernie Goetz case, there was a lot of debate about out, and legal significance to, what the kids said before Goetz started shooting. I agree that the occasional significance of some conversations does not justify the constant widespread surveillance, but it’s a bit much to say that this couldn’t possibl…
Could you elaborate what would be a valid reason? From what you wrote, it sounds like someone started shooting after some kids said some things. I can see that as an argument for gun legislation, but not for installing microphones in public spaces.
I would argue right to privacy until riding enough public transport and hitting enough incidents that make you wish someone was watching. Some incidents: 1. A man as red as a tomato with anger yelling at the top of his lungs that he was going to kill a woman and following her out the door at Chicago’s blue line. 2. A woman begging with a toddler-aged child that was constantly drowsy / appeared sedated on a line multi…
Do you really think these things can be solved by surveillance? I doubt people like you are describing are deterred by that and I don’t think DHS will start hunting possible homeless beggars because they have recordings. What actually increases safety and one of the reason public transport was / felt safer in the past is more personal. If there are train guards on the ride or platform managers at the station, they ca…
Hard to imagine how to solve it without surveillance.