3 ms·

First 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

First 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 ago
I 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 ago
  The 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”
  - AlphaWeaver 8y ago
    When I read your comment, it gave me the impression that these voice prints were being collected during normal telephone use by the inmates. After reading the article, this wasn't the case, so I left my comment in an attempt to help other readers avoid my misunderstanding.
  - sascha_sl 8y ago
    >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? Fingerprints are harder to use in electronic mass surveillance. Databases are easy to combine, the only barrier is often just a legal one (which is a joke for national security). So I'd like governments to collect as little of that data as possible.
- blitmap 8y ago
  See, initially I thought this was going to be a debate about "well this is legal, but is it just?" +1 to you, sir. Having inmates train the voice recognition is (in my opinion) compelling an admission.
samirm 8y ago
The issue this article is raising is that of privacy outside the prison system, not in. Not only are these people (and their friends) being tracked after they have been released, but they're also threatened with loss of a privilege they've always had when they were still inmates.
AndyMcConachie 8y ago
And if we could trust the prison system to destroy these voice prints after the incarcerated person was released this wouldn't be such a big issue. But we can't, and they're not, so what's your point?
anigbrowl 8y ago
People can always supply reasons for why they need to build dystopias.
minikites 8y ago
History will not look kindly on you or your work destroying the lives of vulnerable people.
gnu8 8y ago
You know or probably should know that all conversations between prisoners and their attorneys are privileged. If you're saying that you've illegally recorded and listened to those conversations, you belong in a cage with them.
- privateSFacct 8y ago
  100% totally and completely false. If a client knowingly discloses or includes prison staff on the call that’s a waiver. And most calls from prison make this clear. Now - giving false legal advice may land you in a cage - so please don’t pretend to be a lawyer if you are not.
  - gnu8 8y ago
    I never claimed to be a lawyer because I understand and respect the legal system of the United States. You however do not, and I hope you remember the next time you are violating attorney-client privilege that you are not one of the good guys and you protect no one.
    - privateSFacct 8y ago
      You do not have attorney client privilege if you broadcast your conversation knowingly to others. This can either end up as a waiver (client side) or an ethical violation (attorney side). "you are not one of the good guys and you protect no one." Huh? Interesting. I've been a member of the civil rights movements almost certainly longer than you (card carrying member). Pointing out obvious falsehoods does not make anyone a "bad guy" - and the idea that you are the only "good guy" out there is pathetic. Save the personal attacks.
FireBeyond 8y ago
> We once had a group of confinees switch phone cards to make it difficult to trace who was speaking Does the acknowledgement of recording somehow confer a burden on the confinee to be sure you are able to definitively identify them?

AlphaWeaver 8y ago

I 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 ago
The 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”
- AlphaWeaver 8y ago
  When I read your comment, it gave me the impression that these voice prints were being collected during normal telephone use by the inmates. After reading the article, this wasn't the case, so I left my comment in an attempt to help other readers avoid my misunderstanding.
- sascha_sl 8y ago
  >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? Fingerprints are harder to use in electronic mass surveillance. Databases are easy to combine, the only barrier is often just a legal one (which is a joke for national security). So I'd like governments to collect as little of that data as possible.
blitmap 8y ago
See, initially I thought this was going to be a debate about "well this is legal, but is it just?" +1 to you, sir. Having inmates train the voice recognition is (in my opinion) compelling an admission.

samirm 8y ago

The issue this article is raising is that of privacy outside the prison system, not in. Not only are these people (and their friends) being tracked after they have been released, but they're also threatened with loss of a privilege they've always had when they were still inmates.

AndyMcConachie 8y ago

And if we could trust the prison system to destroy these voice prints after the incarcerated person was released this wouldn't be such a big issue. But we can't, and they're not, so what's your point?

anigbrowl 8y ago

People can always supply reasons for why they need to build dystopias.

minikites 8y ago

History will not look kindly on you or your work destroying the lives of vulnerable people.

gnu8 8y ago

You know or probably should know that all conversations between prisoners and their attorneys are privileged. If you're saying that you've illegally recorded and listened to those conversations, you belong in a cage with them.

privateSFacct 8y ago
100% totally and completely false. If a client knowingly discloses or includes prison staff on the call that’s a waiver. And most calls from prison make this clear. Now - giving false legal advice may land you in a cage - so please don’t pretend to be a lawyer if you are not.
- gnu8 8y ago
  I never claimed to be a lawyer because I understand and respect the legal system of the United States. You however do not, and I hope you remember the next time you are violating attorney-client privilege that you are not one of the good guys and you protect no one.
  - privateSFacct 8y ago
    You do not have attorney client privilege if you broadcast your conversation knowingly to others. This can either end up as a waiver (client side) or an ethical violation (attorney side). "you are not one of the good guys and you protect no one." Huh? Interesting. I've been a member of the civil rights movements almost certainly longer than you (card carrying member). Pointing out obvious falsehoods does not make anyone a "bad guy" - and the idea that you are the only "good guy" out there is pathetic. Save the personal attacks.

FireBeyond 8y ago

> We once had a group of confinees switch phone cards to make it difficult to trace who was speaking Does the acknowledgement of recording somehow confer a burden on the confinee to be sure you are able to definitively identify them?