Public buses across country adding microphones to record conversations (2012)
wired.com
wired.com
Centralized eavesdropping of all conversations in public spaces is really bad.
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.
Wow, that is an amazingly perfect description of so many things.
For another example: computer antivirus programs.
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 possibly be useful.
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.
There is also a potential difference between camera and audio surveillance. Not that I approve of either, and I acknowledge the extreme but less common abilities of camera technology (IR, microexpression, iris analysis, etc), but having one's relatively statiic shell filmed could be perceived as less personal than eavesdropping on a much more dynamic and varying aspect of self than a bad hair day. After all, when we go out in public, most healthy people don't believe they're invisible. We have much more discretion over who hears our thoughts than who sees our faces. Audio is more intrusive in this way. Standard images of our physical appearances don't quite compare to the enormity of subject material, moods, and mind that the funkiest wardrobe simply couldn't articulate.
From the perspective you present, shouldn't anyone in public be perfectly content with mind-reading, or interrogation where the former fails?
If you're genuinely curious about something, you should probably not presume that it's delusional.
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 multiple days, and weeks in a row. 3. The slashing of Nia’s throat in the Bay Area BART.
Eventually we stopped riding public transport, even if it was cheaper or more convenient/fun for the kids, because of fear of traumatizing incidents with little ones present. Its possible that the awareness of possibility of being recorded makes people behave better than they normally would. It’s also possible that public safety is better ensured if they know common abusers and somewhat reduce the abuse.
Pros and cons as always. It can be used for good, but it will also eventually be abused.
Personally feel that the cons outweigh the pros in the case of surveillance.
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.
Hard to imagine how to solve it without surveillance.
Really? Hopefully not
How about giving support for people who need it? How about giving teens options to do something else than roam the streets and gang up? How about giving support to stop generational drug use? How about showing these kids that they have a brighter future ahead if they choose to act on it? How about figuring out how to fix the massive polarisation of opinions, beliefs, income, opportunities etc.?
In the mean time, I'd just like to be able to ride BART without getting mugged.
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! Full video & audio sure feel like they'd help get the police to do something, or a judge to sign a Protection Order, or the Prosecutor to press charges, or the jury to convict. And if the DHS is paying for it?
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.
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/Category:Conflicts_in_2012?lang=en
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 have hit production) was checksum+key propagation system to robustly transfer the most recent footage (prioritised by boarding | departure events) to at least one other bus while alongside in traffic | parked up at stops | terminals.
I had issues with a lax approach to secure wireless access (in those early days, etc) .. but the raison d'être was ostensibly not public spying nor common criminal tracking etc. but to have some record of what happens on public transport that might suddenly blow up ...
The entire project was smack in the grey area with a mass of ethical questions and a huge potential to slide into a police state swill (no doubt today there are people talking about real time .AI analysis (unless, of course, that was added long ago)).
At the time I was working for a private contractor in another field who was branching out and submitting proposals to tenders .. I was not then under any NDA (a relative rarity).
Basically any justification you can imagine would fit under one of their heads, the actual reason is probably they thought the data would be useful.
Interestingly, they have not been installed yet on the newest section of subway, the "Canada Line", which has speaker phones for calling train control but probably do not activate unless someone presses the button. The stations have cameras, but the trains themselves do not, but the older trains on other lines appear to at least have cameras.
When I lived in Chicago (until 2004), I remember seeing signs warning that all activity on the bus might be audio- or video-recorded. I don't know whether they actually did it, but certainly they were ready to decide to do so.
These laws vary wildly by state... And posting notices in many states work to avoid these issues.
So are they legal? Mostly. Yes. But depends where you live and what steps are taken to inform the riders ... But they likely would not record without lawyers saying they are safe to do so.
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.
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.
1. The bus is a public space - in which case, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public (which is well established), and therefore recording should be both legal and protected under the First Amendment.
2. The bus is a private space open to the public - in which case, the owner or the operator of the private space should have the right to record on his/her/their property.
Honestly though, whatever the legal arguments, it FEELS wrong.
So are the courts. By some twisted logic, they concluded that because you can't expect that a random passer-by hears you, you have no reasonable expectation that everywhere in public isn't infested with microphones and cameras uploading everything to intelligence agencies or corporate headquarters.
2. We should be careful, as ever more spaces are becoming "private, open to the public". Perhaps most notably the parks in Wall Street. Soon we may have to travel out of city bounds for any meaningful privacy, if that isn't already the case.
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.
<maniacal-laughter />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
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.
Because those people can have a word with your boss and he can make your life difficult. Of course this only applies to the really powerful people so one would pick and choose who to bug and which bugs to make public use of later.
Amazing how Privacy and Civil Liberties get obliterated by stickers telling you so.
This is also an argument for bombing ordinary citizens.
I would guess this is not an option for the majority of regular bus riders.
Who else wants to play "1984: Vegas edition"? laugh cries