Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Public buses across country adding microphones to record conversations (2012)

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Public buses across country adding microphones to record conversations (2012)

#61

Post by tarakat »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #48
doctorshady wrote: post #11

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.

I think that public transport would count as a public place. My understanding is that wiretap laws and laws on recording focus primarily on private conversations. 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…

> 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).

It is absolutely insane that not assuming a computerized private investigator is following your every step and listening to your every word as soon as you step through your front door is considered 'unreasonable'.

> It's therefore likely that a simple sign saying 'recording in progress' or something similar would be adequate.

It's even more insane that a simple "conversations may be recorded" sticker is all it takes to nullify the 4th Amendment in public.

Re: Public buses across country adding microphones to record conversations (2012)

#62

Post by amadeuspagel »

ForrestN wrote: post #14

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'm curious what the (presumably delusional) for case for this is.

If you're genuinely curious about something, you should probably not presume that it's delusional.

Re: Public buses across country adding microphones to record conversations (2012)

#63

Post by vikingerik »

vintermann wrote: post #51
wodenokoto wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it cover-your-ass? 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.

Oh, as long as they can show that they zealously reported people for talking about blowing up houses in Minecraft, they will be forgiven for not catching the people who talked about blowing up real houses. False positives can be a feature when what you're really after is displaying your zeal.

> False positives can be a feature when what you're really after is displaying your zeal.

Wow, that is an amazingly perfect description of so many things.

For another example: computer antivirus programs.

Re: Public buses across country adding microphones to record conversations (2012)

#64

Post by Throwawayaerlei »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #36
ForrestN wrote: post #14

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.

Can see this as being part of the US mandate from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to add impaired driver detection. What that will be is at the discretion of the Department of Transportation.

Re: Public buses across country adding microphones to record conversations (2012)

#65

Post by RonaldRaygun »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #62
ForrestN wrote: post #14

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'm curious what the (presumably delusional) for case for this is. If you're genuinely curious about something, you should probably not presume that it's delusional.

Chesterton's Panopticon?

Re: Public buses across country adding microphones to record conversations (2012)

#67

Post by JohnFen »

bell-cot wrote: post #53
dzink wrote: post #28

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…

This +100. Having Security Officers on buses costs an incredible amount of money. Over time, just one semi-regular "problem passenger" can drive away hundreds of regular transit users. Video/audio certainly can be done wrong, and won't magically fix the problem - but put yourself in the shoes of a transit system manager who's got both a tight budget and a problem passenger problem. You gotta DO SOMETHING to fix this!…

> Having Security Officers on buses costs an incredible amount of money.

So don't. Busses have drivers. Give them a red button to push when needed that will summon security officers to the next bus stop.

Re: Public buses across country adding microphones to record conversations (2012)

#69

Post by JohnFen »

baud147258 wrote: post #58
kodah wrote: post #42

This article is from 2012, but it never ceases to amaze me that people will make excuses to strip themselves of freedom for a small semblance of safety that will never be.

There's a real loss of privacy, I won't disagree on that, but what freedom(s) are lost when microphones are placed in public buses? And the use I could see for surveillance of public transportation, to help for incidents that devolve in he said/they said (or worse he said/the police said); so more for a question of justice than safety

> what freedom(s) are lost when microphones are placed in public buses?

The freedom to have unmonitored conversations with your friends or even strangers on the bus? If I know audio recording is in use, I certainly don't feel OK talking out loud.

Re: Public buses across country adding microphones to record conversations (2012)

#70

Post by ForrestN »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #62
ForrestN wrote: post #14

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'm curious what the (presumably delusional) for case for this is. If you're genuinely curious about something, you should probably not presume that it's delusional.

Why? Delusions can be fascinating, right? There's no contradiction between being curious about something and thinking it's delusional at the same time, right?
Post reply on HN