3 ms·

> It just says a signal if there is a loud noise in public. This is probably false. There have been two convictions as a result of recordings of conversations

> It just says a signal if there is a loud noise in public. This is probably false. There have been two convictions as a result of recordings of conversations that happened through the devices. I, for one, do not want microphones capable of recording my conversations placed near me by the government. Not because I'm paranoid the government is conspiring against me, but rather because I have zero confidence they're storing those recordings securely, being handled by only authorized persons, and being deleted within a timely manner.

sneak 3y ago
“paranoid” is a symptom of a disease involving delusions (ie false beliefs) and is not a synonym for “anxious about”. It’s also not paranoia if the government does actively conspire to imprison as many people as possible on flimsy evidence. Both possible usages are incorrect here.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
assimpleaspossi 3y ago
It sounds like you are paranoid. Why would the government be listening to a conversation you might be having near a device used for tracking gunshots? Is there some little man somewhere just waiting to pounce on you or anyone just for that purpose? I don't know how effective these devices are but any tool that helps the police go after criminals is a good thing and no one should be fighting against good things.
- humanistbot 3y ago
  Over a two year period in the US, there were over 600 cases where police officers and civilians with access to law enforcement databases violated internal policies and safeguards to access private data about "romantic partners, business associates, neighbors, journalists and others for reasons that have nothing to do with daily police work". This is certainly an undercount, as this is just who got caught and the department didn't cover it up. These are the cases they admitted to doing it and were charged, so the records are public. "Among those punished: an Ohio officer who pleaded guilty to stalking an ex-girlfriend and who looked up information on her; a Michigan officer who looked up home addresses of women he found attractive; and two Miami-Dade officers who ran checks on a journalist after he aired unflattering stories about the department." https://apnews.com/general-news-699236946e3140659fff8a2362e16f43 https://apnews.com/general-news-699236946e3140659fff8a2362e1...
  - assimpleaspossi 3y ago
    The same thing may have occurred with an office just sitting in his squad car on a street corner. Will we now pull them off the streets for that reason? Will we require them to keep their windows rolled up or wear noise cancelling ear muffs? The cases you cite are of people who did things wrong. The cases you cite have nothing to do with the advantages this gives to the police in protecting citizens and solving crimes. Why do people keep fighting against the police who are trying to defend us against crimes? In general, these tools help and don't hurt anyone. Lest anyone forgets, the police are on our side.
    - bastawhiz 3y ago
      > Lest anyone forgets, the police are on our side. This wouldn't be quite so laughable if civil forfeiture didn't exist.
- bastawhiz 3y ago
  You clearly didn't read my comment. We know the recordings exist, that's indisputable. How securely are they stored? How do I know the government isn't selling those recordings to third parties to make a quick buck? How would you know that a conversation you had with nobody around isn't going to leak online and be scrutinized by god knows who? I don't care one way or the other what the government thinks of what I say, but I don't trust them to secure their systems and protect my privacy more broadly, and you shouldn't either. The system could just as easily do exactly what it says (detect gunshots) and NOT save recordings, but that's not the case.

sneak 3y ago

“paranoid” is a symptom of a disease involving delusions (ie false beliefs) and is not a synonym for “anxious about”. It’s also not paranoia if the government does actively conspire to imprison as many people as possible on flimsy evidence. Both possible usages are incorrect here.

SoftTalker 3y ago
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

assimpleaspossi 3y ago

It sounds like you are paranoid. Why would the government be listening to a conversation you might be having near a device used for tracking gunshots? Is there some little man somewhere just waiting to pounce on you or anyone just for that purpose? I don't know how effective these devices are but any tool that helps the police go after criminals is a good thing and no one should be fighting against good things.

humanistbot 3y ago
Over a two year period in the US, there were over 600 cases where police officers and civilians with access to law enforcement databases violated internal policies and safeguards to access private data about "romantic partners, business associates, neighbors, journalists and others for reasons that have nothing to do with daily police work". This is certainly an undercount, as this is just who got caught and the department didn't cover it up. These are the cases they admitted to doing it and were charged, so the records are public. "Among those punished: an Ohio officer who pleaded guilty to stalking an ex-girlfriend and who looked up information on her; a Michigan officer who looked up home addresses of women he found attractive; and two Miami-Dade officers who ran checks on a journalist after he aired unflattering stories about the department." https://apnews.com/general-news-699236946e3140659fff8a2362e16f43 https://apnews.com/general-news-699236946e3140659fff8a2362e1...
- assimpleaspossi 3y ago
  The same thing may have occurred with an office just sitting in his squad car on a street corner. Will we now pull them off the streets for that reason? Will we require them to keep their windows rolled up or wear noise cancelling ear muffs? The cases you cite are of people who did things wrong. The cases you cite have nothing to do with the advantages this gives to the police in protecting citizens and solving crimes. Why do people keep fighting against the police who are trying to defend us against crimes? In general, these tools help and don't hurt anyone. Lest anyone forgets, the police are on our side.
  - bastawhiz 3y ago
    > Lest anyone forgets, the police are on our side. This wouldn't be quite so laughable if civil forfeiture didn't exist.
bastawhiz 3y ago
You clearly didn't read my comment. We know the recordings exist, that's indisputable. How securely are they stored? How do I know the government isn't selling those recordings to third parties to make a quick buck? How would you know that a conversation you had with nobody around isn't going to leak online and be scrutinized by god knows who? I don't care one way or the other what the government thinks of what I say, but I don't trust them to secure their systems and protect my privacy more broadly, and you shouldn't either. The system could just as easily do exactly what it says (detect gunshots) and NOT save recordings, but that's not the case.