5 ms·

In the context of legal system like we have in the US, where police are required to obtain a warrant and provide sufficient evidence to a court, I see no proble

In the context of legal system like we have in the US, where police are required to obtain a warrant and provide sufficient evidence to a court, I see no problem with this. We've been doing it with cell phone data for decades now. I'm all for data privacy, but in the event of a crime being committed we need to allow every tool available to find the truth. This can exonerate innocent people just as easily as it can convict.

8fingerlouie 6y ago
There is a very big difference between what I may say over the phone and what I might say in my home. When on the phone everything I say is with the knowledge that someone (the receiver) is listening. In my home I make no such assumptions. Furthermore, who will be making sure whatever conservation has been overheard is simply not a tv show, radio broadcast, or even the neighbor having an argument in their garden ? While various governments have been busy assuring us that they’ve always had this possibility, they’re lying. They’ve had the possibility to do surveillance, but never retroactive. The ability to sift through not only what you’re going to say, but also what you’ve said in the past X months before you became a suspect is quite new. Anything you say can and will be used against you, possibly in a court of law...
- gruez 6y ago
  >When on the phone everything I say is with the knowledge that someone (the receiver) is listening. In my home I make no such assumptions. I don't see how this point is relevant when the police can bug your house with a warrant.
  - comedowntous 6y ago
    As already explained, there is still an important distinction. One would first have to be the subject of some kind of criminal investigation, and then your house could be bugged from that point in time. When data is requested from a device like a smart speaker, suddenly everything that has been said, even before a potential investigation, would be accessible.
  - 8fingerlouie 6y ago
    They can bug my house, but they can still only listen in on what is being said after the bug was installed. Smart speakers transcribe everything they hear, meaning you lose all tone and nuances of speech patterns, creating a very dangerous cocktail when allowing law enforcement to do text searches or even worse, let AI sift through it. Imagine a speaker that is “always on” while watching black hawk down, or Air Force one, transcribing every line, or worse, a line here or there. I have the same opinion of wide surveillance as DNA registers. It allows for law enforcement to be lazy, and does not guarantee the right person is convicted. In fact it moves the burden of evidence from the prosecutor to the defendant. Suddenly you have to prove your innocence instead of law enforcement having to prove your guilt.
- comedowntous 6y ago
  Exactly, this is an important distinction. Self-censorship in the most intimate private sphere means one's freedom of expression is fundamentally limited in a severe way.
- adkadskhj 6y ago
  > There is a very big difference between what I may say over the phone and what I might say in my home. When on the phone everything I say is with the knowledge that someone (the receiver) is listening. In my home I make no such assumptions. Assumptions, maybe no. But i think people need to be better educated on when those assumptions are false. We put recording devices in our homes and are shocked when those recording devices turn out to be recording. Ideally, the devices should be legally required to give you strong indicators to when it actually is recording. Be it your phone, speakers, w/e. But still - we've got recording devices all around us. If we don't acknowledge that then privacy is just for show.
- beerandt 6y ago
  Not disagreeing with you- but I'm always amazed at how shocked people are too discover that their standard cable boxes have had microphones in them since ~ the early 90's, with the capability to send recordings back over the cable lines. Not retroactive (that we know of), but still. And that the FBI and police have actually used them (with warrants) to get criminal convictions. Publicly available court transcripts confirm this. That's the legal use. Who knows how the NSA has actually been using those in situ capabilities.
  - greenyoda 6y ago
    Do you have a reliable reference about cable boxes having microphones in them? The only thing I could find about this was a claim that it was a hoax: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/camera-obscura https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/camera-obscura
- jnwatson 6y ago
  The same functionality to remotely enable the microphone is available on both cell phones and smart speakers. They are largely similar hardware under the surface.
bergstromm466 6y ago
> I'm all for data privacy, but in the event of a crime being committed we need to allow every tool available to find the truth Are you sure? This isn't the future I signed up for. The justifications for this surveillance tech are so incredibly flimsy
contravariant 6y ago
Historically it would take quite a lot before the police would try to eavesdrop on someone's private conversations. So far the availability of this kind of data has tended to lower the bar for police to get access significantly, which brings us closer to a surveillance state.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
Have you seen under what pretexts people have gotten arrested? A few days after 9/11 there was this Egyptian guy who had bought a copy of MS Flight Simulator and who had spilled a box of powder sugar, he ended up in custody, and these days there's all sorts of Chinese postdocs under FBI surveillance. And you want to invite FBI into your living room?
zepto 6y ago
“ I'm all for data privacy, but in the event of a crime being committed we need to allow every tool available to find the truth.” What kinds of crime do you think this is appropriate for?

8fingerlouie 6y ago

There is a very big difference between what I may say over the phone and what I might say in my home. When on the phone everything I say is with the knowledge that someone (the receiver) is listening. In my home I make no such assumptions. Furthermore, who will be making sure whatever conservation has been overheard is simply not a tv show, radio broadcast, or even the neighbor having an argument in their garden ? While various governments have been busy assuring us that they’ve always had this possibility, they’re lying. They’ve had the possibility to do surveillance, but never retroactive. The ability to sift through not only what you’re going to say, but also what you’ve said in the past X months before you became a suspect is quite new. Anything you say can and will be used against you, possibly in a court of law...

gruez 6y ago
>When on the phone everything I say is with the knowledge that someone (the receiver) is listening. In my home I make no such assumptions. I don't see how this point is relevant when the police can bug your house with a warrant.
- comedowntous 6y ago
  As already explained, there is still an important distinction. One would first have to be the subject of some kind of criminal investigation, and then your house could be bugged from that point in time. When data is requested from a device like a smart speaker, suddenly everything that has been said, even before a potential investigation, would be accessible.
- 8fingerlouie 6y ago
  They can bug my house, but they can still only listen in on what is being said after the bug was installed. Smart speakers transcribe everything they hear, meaning you lose all tone and nuances of speech patterns, creating a very dangerous cocktail when allowing law enforcement to do text searches or even worse, let AI sift through it. Imagine a speaker that is “always on” while watching black hawk down, or Air Force one, transcribing every line, or worse, a line here or there. I have the same opinion of wide surveillance as DNA registers. It allows for law enforcement to be lazy, and does not guarantee the right person is convicted. In fact it moves the burden of evidence from the prosecutor to the defendant. Suddenly you have to prove your innocence instead of law enforcement having to prove your guilt.
comedowntous 6y ago
Exactly, this is an important distinction. Self-censorship in the most intimate private sphere means one's freedom of expression is fundamentally limited in a severe way.
adkadskhj 6y ago
> There is a very big difference between what I may say over the phone and what I might say in my home. When on the phone everything I say is with the knowledge that someone (the receiver) is listening. In my home I make no such assumptions. Assumptions, maybe no. But i think people need to be better educated on when those assumptions are false. We put recording devices in our homes and are shocked when those recording devices turn out to be recording. Ideally, the devices should be legally required to give you strong indicators to when it actually is recording. Be it your phone, speakers, w/e. But still - we've got recording devices all around us. If we don't acknowledge that then privacy is just for show.
beerandt 6y ago
Not disagreeing with you- but I'm always amazed at how shocked people are too discover that their standard cable boxes have had microphones in them since ~ the early 90's, with the capability to send recordings back over the cable lines. Not retroactive (that we know of), but still. And that the FBI and police have actually used them (with warrants) to get criminal convictions. Publicly available court transcripts confirm this. That's the legal use. Who knows how the NSA has actually been using those in situ capabilities.
- greenyoda 6y ago
  Do you have a reliable reference about cable boxes having microphones in them? The only thing I could find about this was a claim that it was a hoax: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/camera-obscura https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/camera-obscura
jnwatson 6y ago
The same functionality to remotely enable the microphone is available on both cell phones and smart speakers. They are largely similar hardware under the surface.

bergstromm466 6y ago

> I'm all for data privacy, but in the event of a crime being committed we need to allow every tool available to find the truth Are you sure? This isn't the future I signed up for. The justifications for this surveillance tech are so incredibly flimsy

contravariant 6y ago

Historically it would take quite a lot before the police would try to eavesdrop on someone's private conversations. So far the availability of this kind of data has tended to lower the bar for police to get access significantly, which brings us closer to a surveillance state.

HarryHirsch 6y ago

Have you seen under what pretexts people have gotten arrested? A few days after 9/11 there was this Egyptian guy who had bought a copy of MS Flight Simulator and who had spilled a box of powder sugar, he ended up in custody, and these days there's all sorts of Chinese postdocs under FBI surveillance. And you want to invite FBI into your living room?

zepto 6y ago

“ I'm all for data privacy, but in the event of a crime being committed we need to allow every tool available to find the truth.” What kinds of crime do you think this is appropriate for?