9 ms·

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 someth

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...

dukeofdoom 4y ago
Could be useful for AI to detect dissenters.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  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.
vikingerik 4y ago
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.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  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.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnonCoward42 4y ago
    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.
- wodenokoto 4y ago
  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.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    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.
    - vikingerik 4y ago
      > 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.
unixbane 4y ago
[flagged]
SilasX 4y ago
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.
- Beldin 4y ago
  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.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    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_shooting#Incident 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.
Lammy 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness never went away.
cm2187 4y ago
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.
- eth0up 4y ago
  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?
lm28469 4y ago
You might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...
amadeuspagel 4y ago
> 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.
- ForrestN 4y ago
  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?
- RonaldRaygun 4y ago
  Chesterton's Panopticon?

dukeofdoom 4y ago

Could be useful for AI to detect dissenters.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
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.

vikingerik 4y ago

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.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AnonCoward42 4y ago
  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.
wodenokoto 4y ago
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.
- vintermann 4y ago
  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.
  - vikingerik 4y ago
    > 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.

unixbane 4y ago

[flagged]

SilasX 4y ago

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.

Beldin 4y ago
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.
- SilasX 4y ago
  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_shooting#Incident 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.

Lammy 4y ago

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

cm2187 4y ago

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.

eth0up 4y ago
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?

lm28469 4y ago

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

amadeuspagel 4y ago

> 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.

ForrestN 4y ago
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?
RonaldRaygun 4y ago
Chesterton's Panopticon?