10 ms·
Prisons Are Quietly Building Databases of Incarcerated People’s Voice Prints
- gringoDan 8y agoThis is disturbing. I'm no lawyer or legal expert, but shouldn't this be contested on 4th Amendement (unreasonable search and seizure) grounds?
- noer 8y agoI don't think incarcerated people are afforded that right.
- gringoDan 8y agoGood point. But the people on the other end of the calls - whose data is also being collected - are afforded that right.
- abtinf 8y agoYou have no reasonable expectation of privacy when calling a prison.
- EGreg 8y agoWhy prisons specifically? Perhaps you should have no reasonable expectation of privacy when calling people in ANY building, then? Some prisons are private, others are public. What about a prison makes this determination easy?
- briandear 8y agoBecause it’s a prison. Voice monitoring is disclosed when calling from a prison. Public or private makes no difference.
- abtinf 8y agoThe purpose of a prison is to hold those who have lost their rights because they have violated the rights of others. To fulfill their purpose, they must maintain a high level of security, both to prevent escape and to prevent further harm to the public. Pervasive and invasive surveillance of the prison population and facilities is a necessary consequence of their legitimate purpose.
- stereographic 8y agoPrivate vs public has no implications here. Both house people who broke laws. You aren't being voice printed in your home by the American prison system be it public or private because you aren't in the American Prison system. I'm not really following your logic here...
- FireBeyond 8y agoMany jails house people who have broken no law, or who will subsequently be acquitted. Or, in your eyes, "collateral damage"...
- LinuxBender 8y agoNo idea why you are being downvoted. Every prison have a disclaimer when you call in or out that all calls are recorded.
- anigbrowl 8y agoWe should consider changing/limiting that.
- morganvachon 8y agoTheir rights are limited, yes, but what about the person on the other end of the call? I feel this is a gross violation of the 4th amendment rights of anyone who receives calls from an inmate subject to this program.
- mr_plow 8y agoYou aren't likely to see any 4th amendment cases brought here because even when they do investigate crimes with info from prison calls they can easily use parallel construction to build their case on something that doesn't fall under the 4th.
- torstenvl 8y agoAlso because any expectation of privacy you have after hearing "This call may be recorded" is per se unreasonable, so the Fourth Amendment has no applicability here.
- mr_plow 8y agoSure but once they start moving into the pen register side of things to connect the dots between the folks on the other side of a prison phone call and the second level of connections they create you start to get into some gray-er areas. It becomes easier to dig through a trash can to find cause for a warrant than to use the call + pen register data.
- f-securus 8y agoThe communication services are predatory. Anecdotally, using a cell phone or cordless phone subjects you to having your call terminated due to '3rd party calls are not allowed'. When contacting customer service they pointed me to FAQ where it said cordless/cell phones should not be used and re-queued me without listening to my complaint. The rate given when pre-purchasing funds was $3 plus applicable fees/taxes for a 15 minute call. Except the jail limits calls to 10 minutes. The system is set up to make the cost ambiguous. I've had the service disconnect me within moments of connection and they could care less. I've reverted to writing post cards (letters are banned too, seems convenient for their bottom line). Family members of those incarcerated are preyed on by these monopolies deemed ok because 'its jail'.
- arkades 8y agoIncarcerated people are generally treated as not having fourth amendment rights - everything in that context is considered not unreasonable.
- freeflight 8y agoAs somebody from Germany, that sounds all kinds of horrible. Is this actually codified in law or just something that's practiced without anybody stopping it? I always thought these amendment rights are one of the most important pillars of what makes the US such an "amazing free democracy"? How can US Americans simply be deprived of those rights, doesn't that create a kind of "two-class" situation where some people are "more equal" than others? It's in especially stark contrast to how Germany applies its version of a constitution, the Grundgesetz. Afaik most of them apply to everybody in Germany, even non-Germans who are just residing in Germany. Not saying Germany always applies this perfectly but denying somebody their Grundrechte is, for obvious historical reasons, usually a very big deal in Germany resulting in a lot of press attention and public outrage.
- empath75 8y agoYou get deprived of those rights by being convicted of a crime by a jury of your peers. That's the whole 'due process' clause in the constitution.
- arcticbull 8y agoSure, it just doesn't work, and for political reasons, nobody wants to put their neck out to actually fix it. I'm no fan of the Donald, and credit where due, he's passed the first meaningful criminal justice reform in years. The joke of course being that's where he sees himself after his term so he should make it as cushy as possible ;)
- arcticbull 8y agoAmerican criminal justice system is in desperate need of reform. It's built around punishment and not rehabilitation making it wildly ineffective. It's totally inhumane. You take a bunch of people who don't know how to live in a society, then torture them instead of teaching them how, in a room full of other such people. Then they get out and shockingly over 76.6% of them do it again within 5 years as compared to the Norwegian system where people are treated like human beings and only 20% re-offend within 5 years [1] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is...
- gowld 8y agoActivist judges have gutted the 4th Amendment over the decades.
- renholder 8y ago>...such as “multiple inmates speaking to one person on the outside on a reoccurring basis.” This sounds like a niche use-case scenario: Inmates that speak to the press.
- vuln 8y agoKingpins in prison yet still running their empire.
- renholder 8y agoI would think the kingpin would be outside of prison for that scenario, yeah? =]
- b_tterc_p 8y agoI believe he means literally people in prison but with enough power and influence to continue to manage operations from within.
- renholder 8y agoAye, the statement was many on the inside to one on the outside, yeah? =] For the "kingpin" scenario, it would be many on the outside to one on the inside, right? (Admittedly, I may be misunderstanding, which is why I'm asking.)
- vuln 8y agoHere is one example but the reply is also correct. https://amp.businessinsider.com/mexican-drug-lord-el-chapo-basically-ran-his-cartel-from-his-jail-cell-2015-8 https://amp.businessinsider.com/mexican-drug-lord-el-chapo-b...
- renholder 8y agoI'm probably misunderstanding but that would be many on the outside speaking to one on the inside, yeah?
- pacala 8y agoFWIW, customer service of your average corporation is likely to already have voice fingerprinting in place.
- mediocrejoker 8y agoI asked my mobile provider (Rogers) if they had any alternatives to storing my birth date as my account verification method and they offered to enrol me in their voice print program. I declined.
- raverbashing 8y agoWell, the main identification method should have been calling from their own phone (from their own system), but who knows why they're not doing that.
- paulie_a 8y agoWhy not just lie and give them a fake birthday? It's not like you can't give them false information.
- ams6110 8y agoSomeone knowing your birthdate isn't really a big deal anyway
- FiveSquared 8y agoSocial Security, dark web crackers, and crappy online forgotten passwords websites want to know your location. I jest. But seriously, DOB is extremely valuable, which is why I never use my real one online except for government stuff like that.
- paulie_a 8y agoTo the poster it sounded like he didn't want to hand that info over. I don't know the reason, I was just providing a fairly simple solution. Also dob is frequently used as a verification. So it is kind of a big deal.
- EGreg 8y agoWell they have to do it quietly or they will mess up the recording :-D
- JimBrimble35 8y agoThis is interesting. I could see this being used for a sort of Shazam of anonymized voice data. You have access to anonymous voice data (from service providers, messaging services etc.), but you can't connect that data to an individual without alienating their rights. Something like this could be used to filter that data for specific voice prints if you have a warrant. Tinfoil hat take: It won't be long until voice prints are collected and shared for the majority of the population and connected to individuals via ad networks. It would be relatively simple for somewhere like Starbucks to install microphones, cancel out the in-store music, and keyword conversations for advertising purposes. The time for powerful privacy legislation is now.
- gowld 8y agoAnd if your shoddy tech matches the wrong person and the judge and jury don't understand the broken tech and tortured statistical model, there's no problem because everyone in the database is already a known criminal who deserves to be punished.
- JimBrimble35 8y agoYes. To be clear I think this is a terrible idea, but the appeal of the power this could wield as an investigative tool will likely outweigh all arguments against it.
- polskibus 8y agoI wonder if all companies offering free voice calls like Facebook, Google are collecting voice prints without user consent. I wonder if they offer other parties a service where input is a recording, output is identified person.
- swebs 8y agoRead the ToS when signing up to those things. They're collecting everything and according to the law, blindly clicking "I agree" counts as consent.
- polskibus 8y agoCollecting is one thing, offering others voice base identification is another. GDPR changed the landscape so I don't have to fear that a single consent is a blanket one. It would be good to find out how the FAANG are using voice prints.
- shittyadmin 8y agoUnless you're a European citizen interacting with a European company GDPR changed nothing, they can show you a different ToS and play entirely in your court system where GDPR is meaningless.
- polskibus 8y agoIsn't it enough that Google et al conducts business in EU and have a representation here?
- AlphaWeaver 8y agoNo, it isn't. GDPR only affects EU citizens living in the EU. It's possible for companies to maintain entirely different practices for their users in the EU verses out of the EU.
- 8y ago
- torstenvl 8y agoFirst of all, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in inmate/confinee calls. The system they use plays a message to that effect at the beginning of the call. Jail/prison/brig phone calls are routinely recorded, and prosecutors listen to those phone calls. That's why defense attorneys will come see you in person. It's also why every once in a while you'll get an admission or other indications of guilt from someone who doesn't listen to those warnings. http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/26/jailhouse.calls.recordings/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/26/jailhouse.calls.recordin... Second, an anecdote. The system they use in my jurisdiction uses phone cards. We once had a group of confinees switch phone cards to make it difficult to trace who was speaking (and at the very least introduce reasonable doubt). I listened to dozens of hours of audio in one case, just hoping for the caller to identify himself (since the advent of caller ID, it seems a lot of people just say "Hey"). Voice printing would have been very helpful here.
- AlphaWeaver 8y agoI think this is a bit different... This is clearly asking the inmates to utter phrases with the intent of training a model, with the threat of revoking the ability to contact loved ones if you don't comply. This isn't being constructed from the existing phone calls, but specifically targeted action to collect clean training data.
- torstenvl 8y agoThe article says the voice prints are used in "a new voice surveillance system," specifically that "algorithms then draw on these databases to identify the voices taking part in a call." I read the other posters concerns about Fourth Amendment protections as responding to the surveillance use, not to the collection. My post was in response to my general read of those concerns. It seems your objection is primarily to the collection of the voice print itself. Why do you feel like that's different from collecting finger prints?
- minitoar 8y ago“You have the right to remain silent”
- MrTonyD 8y agoThe bigger threat that WW3 or Global Warming is pervasive monitoring. Whoever survives all the other disasters can be completely controlled by whoever has the ability to monitor everything (and then kill anybody who acts or speaks against their interest. There is no such thing as resistance when your ability to resist is detected and monitored.
- viivaux 8y agoCurrently, you're downvoted to near the bottom, while the top comment is defending this violation of dignity. What's going on here; are we that out of touch with this community's values?
- brokenmachine 8y agoI'm starting to think the wider community has no idea how bad the possible outcomes of mass surveillance are. Lucky for them, they have nothing to hide so don't need to worry! /s
- Jill_the_Pill 8y agoMaybe they are downvoting because the apocalypse would have destroyed the physical infrastructure needed for such surveillance? It's sort of dystopia or the other; you can't have both!
- MrTonyD 8y agoWell, if that is their reason for downvoting then they really haven't thought it through. Pervasive monitoring is pervasive in large part because modern monitoring sensors are produced by the billions and are incredibly tiny (I'm talking about custom military stuff - not "spy-warehouse" stuff.) These are distributed systems and even today they spread their data all over the world to many huge secret underground bunkers (I know NSA guys who've describe these to me.) So even today there is a lot more monitoring than people realize. And this is analogous to the old nuclear first strike logic - if somebody strikes first then they have won. Once you get full control, your monitoring can't be fought.
- andy_ppp 8y agoYou could make a neural network that categorised those who are more likely to be criminals based on this data. Big if, but if it was accurate to say 95% would it be moral? Strange times in which we live.
- Anon84 8y agoWhy do you expect someone's voice to give clues as to wether or not s/he's a criminal? More likely than not, the model would simply learn to detect minority accents and further help institutional discrimination against minorities (which are already significantly more likely to be sentenced to prison, etc).
- roywiggins 8y agoI expect it would just categorize all younger men with African American accents and a gradeschool vocabulary as criminals. 37.1% of 20-to 34-year old black men without a high school diploma or equivalent are currently incarcerated. https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2010/collateralcosts1pdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...
- andy_ppp 8y agoWoah 37% is terrible, good point about the racism it would no doubt match against... My real question is as we get better AI systems and more accurate ones should we use them to make decisions that can affect people in profound ways. Seems that maybe this is not the right place to discuss something as open ended and off topic as this!
- thucydidesofusa 8y ago>Woah 37% is terrible what do you think the right number should be?
- En_gr_Student 8y agoYou know, there are illegal cell phones in prisons. If the prison folks have the ability to determine whose voice is speaking, then they can related an outgoing cell signal at the prison to a particular incarcerated person. It would be like a wire-tap without a warrant. Do they need a warrant for someone already in prison? It is going to be funny/ironic when the "Social Credit" system in China has voice-fingerprints of nearly every person under surveillance, so that words heard by any listening device would be admissible to analysis. They could then detect someone saying things of folks in power, both in adherence to political norms, and also in detection of fraud. Thought-crimes, coming soon.
- Jill_the_Pill 8y agoFolks like to think of 1984 as disturbingly prescient, but I think of Solzhenitsyn's In the First Circle often these days. The plot involves the use of a voiceprint (developed by imprisoned scientists) to identify the speaker in a bugged phone call. Wouldn't Stalin have loved our technologies of surveillance?
- Animats 8y agoWe need a public database of voice prints of political figures. Not hard; they talk in public a lot. Political figures have no expectation of privacy, after all.
- gruez 8y agoWhat's the point of having this, other than to getting petty revenge at "The Man"? It's not like you control a surveillance system that could use those voiceprints.