3 ms·

> If that's you're criteria for when to act, you are always going to be too late to do anything. Some of us prefer the idea of detecting problems early - hopefu

> If that's you're criteria for when to act, you are always going to be too late to do anything. Some of us prefer the idea of detecting problems early - hopefully before the become violent. Your argument is different to, and stronger than the parent's though. The parent's argument was not that we were on the thin end of a wedge to a totalitarian state, but that in some senses we had already passed that point because there was a voluntary element to it. Still though, IR cameras by their nature are always-on and always transmitting data. They'd be pretty useless if they weren't! That's not the case for Google Home or any of the solutions currently on the market. Google Home also no-more violates this condition than say, a set top TV box that sends data on my TV viewing back to a central server.

pdkl95 9y ago
Always-on isn't required. The deciding factor is what the general public expects. If the public expects that a home might be recording their speech and sending it to a 3rd party - and thus theoretically has the opportunity to not speak or employ some sort of defense being recorded - then then Kyllo v United States suggests 4th Amendment protection no longer applies. Just look at how many people here on HN already claim to no longer expect privacy. > voluntary element That's my point - your choice to voluntarily normalize surveillance impacts my 4th Amendment protections.
snerbles 9y ago
> Still though, IR cameras by their nature are always-on and always transmitting data. In the case of near-IR night vision CCTV cameras in common use, yes. The case of Kyllo v. United States specifically involved very expensive long-wavelength thermal imagers that are not typically used in civilian CCTV applications [0]. Furthermore, federal agents specifically pointed a mobile camera at the house to see temperature changes behind the walls, which differs from a static always-on installation. [0] There are fixed thermal surveillance imagers (see http://www.flir.com/surveillance/display/?id=64664 http://www.flir.com/surveillance/display/?id=64664 for FLIR's latest), but they're typically used for military installation security. Unlike NIR cameras they require no external illumination, and are tuned to detect the black-body radiation naturally emitted by warm-blooded things.

pdkl95 9y ago

Always-on isn't required. The deciding factor is what the general public expects. If the public expects that a home might be recording their speech and sending it to a 3rd party - and thus theoretically has the opportunity to not speak or employ some sort of defense being recorded - then then Kyllo v United States suggests 4th Amendment protection no longer applies. Just look at how many people here on HN already claim to no longer expect privacy. > voluntary element That's my point - your choice to voluntarily normalize surveillance impacts my 4th Amendment protections.

snerbles 9y ago

> Still though, IR cameras by their nature are always-on and always transmitting data. In the case of near-IR night vision CCTV cameras in common use, yes. The case of Kyllo v. United States specifically involved very expensive long-wavelength thermal imagers that are not typically used in civilian CCTV applications [0]. Furthermore, federal agents specifically pointed a mobile camera at the house to see temperature changes behind the walls, which differs from a static always-on installation. [0] There are fixed thermal surveillance imagers (see http://www.flir.com/surveillance/display/?id=64664 http://www.flir.com/surveillance/display/?id=64664 for FLIR's latest), but they're typically used for military installation security. Unlike NIR cameras they require no external illumination, and are tuned to detect the black-body radiation naturally emitted by warm-blooded things.