41–50 of 76 posts
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…
Could be useful for AI to detect dissenters.
Probably a good idea to add the year to the title (2012)
Once it's there, it's there. Learn to live with the surveillance and don't do drug deals anywhere near cams/mics.
Ha, who am I kidding.
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/…
Funding started prior to ~ 2008 at least ... I'm in a Five Eyes nation (Austalia) and 14+ (ish) years ago I specc'd out, prototyped, and demo'd a bus recording system for the UK under the loose project heading of Panopticon (I shit you not). Essentially a lightweight handler about a "hard drive as multitrack ring buffer" oldest footage+audio being overwritten. One of the more interesting parts (that may or may not ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't remember that case at all. Possibly because I'm not American. 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.
You can look up the case on Wikipedia and elsewhere if you're curious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...
Bottom line, it's really not hard to imagine that audio recording would help determine important facts of a case; this shouldn't be controversial in and of itself. The issue is the relative cost to personal liberty.
With the way wiretapping laws work and the bus operator not being a party in any of the conversations they surveil, I wonder if it's legal to be recording peoples' voices here.
In Baltimore, wiretap laws only apply where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' (https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685) per Fourth Amendment standards (which would suggest that any recordings made in a public place would be lawful).
California is a bit more complex—Penal Code 632 talks only about the confidentiality of the discussion. It would be possible to have a confidential discussion in a public place, however, 632 c) specifically excludes circumstances 'in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded'. It's therefore likely that a simple sign saying 'recording in progress' or something similar would be adequate.
Amazing how Privacy and Civil Liberties get obliterated by stickers telling you so.
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…