5 ms·

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 abil

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.

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.