4 ms·

A bit disappointing that this sends audio recordings to a server. Even if it's not the intention, that leaves so much possibility for abuse. Why not use a Pixe

by bilalq 2y ago

A bit disappointing that this sends audio recordings to a server. Even if it's not the intention, that leaves so much possibility for abuse. Why not use a Pixel phone with on-device song matching? It also keeps history on device. Getting that data out of the app might be a little tricky, but should be possible.

tiagod 2y ago
Perfect is the enemy of good. I've found it's much better to get a project up and running as an "MVP" than to chase the perfect until the details suck all the fun out of it.
- bilalq 2y ago
  I don't see what that has to do with what I said. Chasing an MVP doesn't have to involve disrespecting people's privacy and recording without consent. There are many worse violators than this, but it is what it is.
  - jbullock35 2y ago
    It's a very public place in the United States. It's not clear that people should expect or be entitled to much privacy in these public places. We also know that, regardless of the degree of privacy to which people should be entitled, they're not legally entitled to much privacy in these places. Federal court rulings have been extremely clear on this point. In these places, we don't even have the right to not be photographed.
    - waffleiron 2y ago
      >they're not legally entitled to much privacy in these places. While I think this is a really cool project, I also agree with the privacy issues. CA is a two party consent state, and recording a conversation (which this is likely to do) like this is likely illegal. While a person might not have a expectation of privacy about someone just hearing the conversation, they are protected by law if they are recorded without their knowledge. NB: I am not a lawyer, and the above could very well be wrong. Edit: As I was informed below, I was wrong on the legal points.
      - borski 2y ago
        There is no right to privacy in a public space. It is not illegal to record an area where individuals would not have the expectation of privacy, even without their consent. Therefore, this is not illegal. If this were a restaurant, that would be a different story.
        waffleiron 2y ago
        Yup you are totally right for CA: > Exceptions (one-party consent required): (1) where there is no expectation of privacy, (2) recording within government proceedings that are open to the public, (3) recording certain crimes or communications regarding such crimes (for the purpose of obtaining evidence), (4) a victim of domestic violence recording a communication made to him/her by the perpetrator (for the purpose of obtaining a restraining order or evidence that the perpetrator violated an existing restraining order), and (5) a peace officer recording a communication within a location in response to an emergency hostage situation. Source: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING...
        HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
        > There is no right to privacy in a public space. No legally protected right. This doesn't mean it is ethical, and given that it is a protected right in other jurisdictions shows it deserves more consideration and should not be hand waived away. If "it's legal" is the argument being used to defense a behavior, it's safe to assume it's not actually a good one.
        fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
        No, "it's legal" is the argument being used to defend the "it's illegal" and "you're not allowed to" argument. The argument to support the project is that it's cool af.
        borski 2y ago
        It is legal. The claim was that it wasn’t. I never argued it was ethical. I think it is, but that wasn’t my argument.
  - robocat 2y ago
    This is just an artistic way of showing surveillance. Fixing this one installation wouldn't fix all the rest (example: Shot spotter)
  - tempfile 2y ago
    It is good to care about this sort of thing, but this is untargeted recording in public. It is not very different to the fact that if I was recording a home movie in public I may incidentally record someone's conversation. The real harm would occur if the conversations were being stored and analysed systematically, for example by police. But the OP is not doing that (they claim).
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  This attitude is one of the worst, most harmful things to come out of Silicon Valley tech culture.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
    I sincerely doubt that. Should you blindly apply it to everything? Of course not, nuance exists. Apply it OP's project. The project is super cool, popular, and most of all it's done and it exists. The worst thing you can say about it is that it's not perfect and failed one weird purity test. Oh no, public audio gets sent to a server!
  - olyjohn 2y ago
    There's a difference between doing this for a personal project, and doing this with a product that you expect other people to pay for...
  - tiagod 2y ago
    It's just a harmless personal project.
franga2000 2y ago
I don't get what you mean by "possibility for abuse". The author abusing it? Well if they wanted to do that they wouldn't have built the whole music detection thing and wrote about it on the internet. If Shazam gets breached or turns evil, we have infinitely bigger problems than this one phone on this one street. If the author's server gets hacked, the hacker wouldn't care about this - the hackers who want large surveillance networks hack phones and IoT crap, not random people's home servers. And honestly, as a commentary on how commonplace and normal mass surveillance has become, which this project seems to be, I quite like the threat of "there is a box out there somewhere that sends everything it hears to a server and it does this not for good or evil, but because one programmer was bored and thought what if I could know what song was playing in the cafe across the street".

by bilalq 2y ago

tiagod 2y ago

Perfect is the enemy of good. I've found it's much better to get a project up and running as an "MVP" than to chase the perfect until the details suck all the fun out of it.

bilalq 2y ago
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. Chasing an MVP doesn't have to involve disrespecting people's privacy and recording without consent. There are many worse violators than this, but it is what it is.
- jbullock35 2y ago
  It's a very public place in the United States. It's not clear that people should expect or be entitled to much privacy in these public places. We also know that, regardless of the degree of privacy to which people should be entitled, they're not legally entitled to much privacy in these places. Federal court rulings have been extremely clear on this point. In these places, we don't even have the right to not be photographed.
  - waffleiron 2y ago
    >they're not legally entitled to much privacy in these places. While I think this is a really cool project, I also agree with the privacy issues. CA is a two party consent state, and recording a conversation (which this is likely to do) like this is likely illegal. While a person might not have a expectation of privacy about someone just hearing the conversation, they are protected by law if they are recorded without their knowledge. NB: I am not a lawyer, and the above could very well be wrong. Edit: As I was informed below, I was wrong on the legal points.
    - borski 2y ago
      There is no right to privacy in a public space. It is not illegal to record an area where individuals would not have the expectation of privacy, even without their consent. Therefore, this is not illegal. If this were a restaurant, that would be a different story.
      - waffleiron 2y ago
        Yup you are totally right for CA: > Exceptions (one-party consent required): (1) where there is no expectation of privacy, (2) recording within government proceedings that are open to the public, (3) recording certain crimes or communications regarding such crimes (for the purpose of obtaining evidence), (4) a victim of domestic violence recording a communication made to him/her by the perpetrator (for the purpose of obtaining a restraining order or evidence that the perpetrator violated an existing restraining order), and (5) a peace officer recording a communication within a location in response to an emergency hostage situation. Source: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING...
      - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
        > There is no right to privacy in a public space. No legally protected right. This doesn't mean it is ethical, and given that it is a protected right in other jurisdictions shows it deserves more consideration and should not be hand waived away. If "it's legal" is the argument being used to defense a behavior, it's safe to assume it's not actually a good one.
        fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
        No, "it's legal" is the argument being used to defend the "it's illegal" and "you're not allowed to" argument. The argument to support the project is that it's cool af.
        borski 2y ago
        It is legal. The claim was that it wasn’t. I never argued it was ethical. I think it is, but that wasn’t my argument.
- robocat 2y ago
  This is just an artistic way of showing surveillance. Fixing this one installation wouldn't fix all the rest (example: Shot spotter)
- tempfile 2y ago
  It is good to care about this sort of thing, but this is untargeted recording in public. It is not very different to the fact that if I was recording a home movie in public I may incidentally record someone's conversation. The real harm would occur if the conversations were being stored and analysed systematically, for example by police. But the OP is not doing that (they claim).
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
This attitude is one of the worst, most harmful things to come out of Silicon Valley tech culture.
- fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
  I sincerely doubt that. Should you blindly apply it to everything? Of course not, nuance exists. Apply it OP's project. The project is super cool, popular, and most of all it's done and it exists. The worst thing you can say about it is that it's not perfect and failed one weird purity test. Oh no, public audio gets sent to a server!
- olyjohn 2y ago
  There's a difference between doing this for a personal project, and doing this with a product that you expect other people to pay for...
- tiagod 2y ago
  It's just a harmless personal project.

franga2000 2y ago

I don't get what you mean by "possibility for abuse". The author abusing it? Well if they wanted to do that they wouldn't have built the whole music detection thing and wrote about it on the internet. If Shazam gets breached or turns evil, we have infinitely bigger problems than this one phone on this one street. If the author's server gets hacked, the hacker wouldn't care about this - the hackers who want large surveillance networks hack phones and IoT crap, not random people's home servers. And honestly, as a commentary on how commonplace and normal mass surveillance has become, which this project seems to be, I quite like the threat of "there is a box out there somewhere that sends everything it hears to a server and it does this not for good or evil, but because one programmer was bored and thought what if I could know what song was playing in the cafe across the street".