NJ Transit is recording the conversations of thousands of passengers

[DGuller]

I actually don't think it has to - I was talking to a friend about how I've always thought I would have really enjoyed a career in criminal law, and he asked me "as a prosecutor, or as a defense attorney?"

He seemed very confused that I found both vocations compelling. He didn't really seem to understand that my interest was around the process and being involved in justice, and that I could find both sides very, very interesting.

And I really feel that way - I find the idea of how to use the system to actually create some semblance of justice fascinating. Whether that be prosecuting people or defending them is not important from the standpoint of what I find interesting.

Of course, in practical terms there are massive differences that might pull me one way or the other, had I gone that route.

I think there is a natural tendency to identify with your field, no matter what it is.  When I go car shopping, I catch car salesmen trying to dick around with me all the time, clearly trying their best to make me commit to a sub-optimal decision.  But to hear my dad's car salesman friend talk, it's the customers that are unreasonable dicks, who would put you through the ringer just to squeeze a couple of hundred dollars out of you.

[Josquius]

Maybe the key is that the cameras need very obvious looking microphones attached to them?
I mean, the camera makes it clear you're being watched, not necessarily listened to.

[Zanza]

GUess what - what you say out loud in a large public place with lots of other people present isn't public by any stretch of the imagination.

That's the opposite of your previous opinion on this. I guess your second "public" should say "private"?

[Barrister]

GUess what - what you say out loud in a large public place with lots of other people present isn't public by any stretch of the imagination.

That's the opposite of your previous opinion on this. I guess your second "public" should say "private"?

Correct.

[Zanza]

I prefer to err on the side of not using surveillance gear. I see a risk of abuse and cherish the notion that the government should stay out of citizens' lives as much as possible without compromising its ability to fulfill its purpose.

No idea if crime is so terrible on these trains that it warrants this measure. If so, put up signs about the surveillance measures and review whether they are actually effective and proportional to their purpose periodically.

[Barrister]

I prefer to err on the side of not using surveillance gear. I see a risk of abuse and cherish the notion that the government should stay out of citizens' lives as much as possible without compromising its ability to fulfill its purpose.

No idea if crime is so terrible on these trains that it warrants this measure. If so, put up signs about the surveillance measures and review whether they are actually effective and proportional to their purpose periodically.

I've prosecuted a few crimes that happened at train stations.  The thing about them is that they are open until very late and they are very often the transportation of choice for people with very low means.  A security camera system is far, far cheaper than trying to hire security officers.  As such they can be reasonably useful.

[Eddie Teach]

People never had any right to privacy while they're out in public.  You could always take a seat next to two guys, pretend to read the newspaper, but really listen in.  There is nothing different about this.

They could choose to not say anything when other people are in range. Bit tougher to avoid eavesdropping by electronic devices.

[Zanza]

Considering the quick advances in sensors (e.g. self driving cars and Internet of things) and biometric pattern recognition you could probably build cameras by now that recognize persons and could make a guess on their current mental state (body temperature, pupils widened or so, clenching teeth) and preemptively try to filter out the potential trouble makers. You could then follow them with a drone or using various CCTV systems. Adding audio to that obviously adds more data to crunch and allows a better recognition of dangerous elements. The system should also be able to detect common crimes like vandalism or assault by matching patterns. Pickpocketing is probably harder. Once the system thinks a certain threshold of probability of criminal behaviour is reached, it could notify the human law enforcement officers and lead them towards the potential criminal.

[dps]

I don't understand the insistence on the part of some posters that there should be signs telling people that their conversations might be recorded.  I understand why you'd want that in theory, but in practice, nobody's gonna bother reading the dang things anyway--it's a waste of money.

OTOH, I figure that it's probably a waste of money 99.99% of the time to record people's conversations on public transit anyway, so even just on a pragmatic level, I have doubts about the whole idea, without even getting into the privacy issues.

[The Brain]

I don't understand the insistence on the part of some posters that there should be signs telling people that their conversations might be recorded.  I understand why you'd want that in theory, but in practice, nobody's gonna bother reading the dang things anyway--it's a waste of money.

Read? It's likely just a symbol.

[Barrister]

I don't understand the insistence on the part of some posters that there should be signs telling people that their conversations might be recorded.  I understand why you'd want that in theory, but in practice, nobody's gonna bother reading the dang things anyway--it's a waste of money.

OTOH, I figure that it's probably a waste of money 99.99% of the time to record people's conversations on public transit anyway, so even just on a pragmatic level, I have doubts about the whole idea, without even getting into the privacy issues.

If you have a video camera, it's trivially easy and inexpensive to install an audio recorder.  As well the amount of data generated (which is the real expense with such systems - what do yo do with all the data) is microscopic when compared to video.

ALmost all of my CCTV footage I use in court is video only.  But when you have the addition of audio it really does give you a much better picture of what is happening.

[DGuller]

OTOH, I figure that it's probably a waste of money 99.99% of the time to record people's conversations on public transit anyway, so even just on a pragmatic level, I have doubts about the whole idea, without even getting into the privacy issues.

Doesn't matter, as long as you have a cost-effective way of zeroing down on the other 0.01% of the stuff (which is hopefully related to illegal activities rather than activities of troublesome activists).

[jimmy olsen]

Yes, there are plenty of legitimate concerns and issues about what someone like NJ transit can do with the information it records.  Malthus is correct that there are various rules restricting what use such information can be used.  In my work as a prosecutor I need to be aware of FOIP - our Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which restricts what personal information can be made public.

Would it be reasonable for the state to use that information to compel people to be married to one another it decided ought to be married?

Just an example...

Depends who it's gonna compel me to marry.

[viper37]

But if we accept that the state has the right to collect that data regardless of particular need, then why can't the state sell it, or keep it forever, or do whatever they like with it?

I envision the same as a privacy policy from a private corporation.
Microsoft will tell you what it collects and how it is used.  If you disagree with that, you can refuse the agreement.  If they tell you they don't seel your info and then actually sell it, you can sue them for compensation and force them to stop their practice.

If you accept that there are in fact reasonable restrictions that citizens can and should place on how the state uses the data, then you are implicitly stating that private citizens do in fact have some rights in respects to that "public" data, aren't you?

I understand that a State has the right to put cameras at every lights to monitor traffic violation.  I may not like it, but I recognize that legitimate right.  It is stated that is used for that purpose only, the cities using such cameras even advertize where they are used (in Quebec, at least).

Just as I understand that if I activate telemetry on my Win10 computer, Microsoft has the right to collect data on how my use software, how it crashes, how it conflicts.  In some places, they ask me if I want targetted advertizing or not.  I am not allowed to disable ads entirely, however.
But I have a choice to refuse the telemetry.

Absent that, because of security measures put in place by the State, I would expect a clear privacy policy: what are you recording, when are you recording, how long to you keep the records and what do you do with it.

If I am unsatisfied with this, because as you say, they decide it's a good thing to share the data with advertizers to balance their budget, then I can use legal and/or political actions to make it change.

If I am unaware of that fact because it is being kept a secret, than it is a totally different matter.

I don't like security cameras and microphones, but I can understand their use in some places where it is dangerous, and I can recognize their usefulness when aptly used.  However, there is always the risk of data overload and that is also a concern.

But if you ask on the general principle of recording citizens, am I ok with it?  Yes, I am.  But the devil is in the details.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm conflicted.  On the one hand, I don't care much for this government Barrister Boy . . . sorry Big Brother, stuff. 

On the other hand, people should just be quiet on NJ transit; anything that discourages talking is a plus.