Hacker News Reader

Comment by ForrestN | Hacker News Reader

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 the obvious ease with which this could be abused is even more stark put next to the uselessness of this to the people installing it...

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

Ignoring the scale the comparison might fit with some taxi driver installing the same thing and eavesdropping on the passengers, but the scale is quite important here. If some random hacker eavesdrop on your conversation, it might be bad but not necessarily detrimental for the whole society, however if this is done on mostly all people in a society, it's basically an abolishment of democracy with a delay.

Centralized eavesdropping of all conversations in public spaces is really bad.

> 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?

Chesterton's Panopticon?

Though I am not sure I understand the case against either, what you say in a bus can be overheard by anyone, it's not really a private conversation, and if you accept the concept of video surveillance, having also audio is a small incremental step.

Being 'overheard', especially by those in your immediate view, is significantly different from being recorded and then overheard by unseen unknown strangers indefinitely.

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness never went away.

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.

You might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...

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 possibly be useful.

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.

It would be the same issue if he simply assaulted them with his fists -- the recording would help to determine if he was being threatened.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com