NJ Transit is recording the conversations of thousands of passengers

[viper37]

Security cameras on the NJ Transit aren't just watching what you do, they're also listening to everything you say.The state's metropolitan light rail system records what passengers are saying, which officials say is part of an upgraded safety plan to deter crime. Although video surveillance cameras are widely used on many transportation systems, New Jersey is pushing further with audio coverage.
[...]

Link
[url=http://www.zdnet.com/article/nj-transit-is-recording-the-conversations-of-thousands-of-passengers/

[Barrister]

Some people have deeply stupid notions of what is "private".

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.

[DGuller]

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.

[viper37]

Some people have deeply stupid notions of what is "private".

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.

Well, people should be warned that everything they say is recorded.  Then, it should be available to them the info on how long it is gonna be kept and how to they use it (yes, it's obvious, but it needs to be put in writing so that data is not resold/shared with 3rd party for different purpose than crime prevention/solving).

[Barrister]

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.

I wish more people would realize this.  As a daily train rider I wish more people would just shut their trap on the train.

[Berkut]

I largely agree, but at the same time...well, there is something to be said about technology scaling, and what that means in effective privacy.

The fact that I am out driving my car in public means I cannot expect that my doing so is "private".

Does that mean that state has the right, say, to setup license plate cameras at every intersection, and track the movements of every car and use that information for whatever it likes?

Could they sell it, so companies could target their advertising at me better?

Could my employer then use that information to decide I take longer lunches than anyone else, and maybe I should not get a very good raise?

At what point does "public" information that has little practical utility because it cannot be aggregated effectively and hence ends up being *practically* private, actually imply some level of practical privacy that data collection technology advances would effectively destroy?

Nobody thinks that their conversation on a public bus is really private. But if I keep my voice down and nobody is snooping, I can certainly have an effectively private conversation, and reasonable expect that nobody can hear me. Is it ok for the state to then employ advanced technology to eavesdrop on that conversation anyway, even without my knowledge?

I think at the least the state should be required to make their surveillance public knowledge.

And I don't accept that just because something is done in public, the state has carte blanche to collect that information and use it for any possible purpose without showing a compelling need to do so.

Of course, I am one of those crazy people who actually buy into the idea of limited government power...and very limited restrictions on personal privacy and liberty.

[Berkut]

Some people have deeply stupid notions of what is "private".

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.

Well, people should be warned that everything they say is recorded.  Then, it should be available to them the info on how long it is gonna be kept and how to they use it (yes, it's obvious, but it needs to be put in writing so that data is not resold/shared with 3rd party for different purpose than crime prevention/solving).

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?

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?

[Malthus]

Some people have deeply stupid notions of what is "private".

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.

You are thinking like a prosecutor. 

Thinking like a corporate lawyer - it is an issue. A corporation (public or private), at least here in Canada, is supposed to limit its collection of information concerning people to what is necessary for whatever legitimate purposes it is collecting it for, and to hold that information for only as long as is necessary, and allow various mechanisms for people to object to collection to remove their information.

Now, this information is collected for law enforcement and safety purposes, so obviously seeking specific consent in advance would defeat its purpose ... but that doesn't mean that anything goes.

In Canada at least, if NJ Transit were a private corporation, it would have to follow these laws:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2000-c-5/latest/sc-2000-c-5.html

Public corps and government itself have other applicable laws.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-p-21/latest/rsc-1985-c-p-21.html

And various provincial laws, all to the same effect.

[Malthus]

Some people have deeply stupid notions of what is "private".

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.

Well, people should be warned that everything they say is recorded.  Then, it should be available to them the info on how long it is gonna be kept and how to they use it (yes, it's obvious, but it needs to be put in writing so that data is not resold/shared with 3rd party for different purpose than crime prevention/solving).

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?

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?

In Canada, they do. I assume they do in the US as well.

[DGuller]

I largely agree, but at the same time...well, there is something to be said about technology scaling, and what that means in effective privacy.

It's not just something, it's everything.  The ability to aggregate and analyze the information collected from people "out in public" changes the spirit of the concept of privacy beyond any recognition.  Legal rights and protections cannot be divorced from the practical implications of their existence or absence, and these implications change with technology.  It's such an obvious point that quite frankly I can't fathom how in all such discussions so many lawyers here with a straight face can say that "nothing changed, the law always allowed that".

[Barrister]

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.

But to call the mere recording itself a "monumental invasion of privacy" is just silly.

[DGuller]

But to call the mere recording itself a "monumental invasion of privacy" is just silly.

If opposition to indiscriminate surveillance is being silly, then I think it's a label one should wear with pride.  I think working as a prosecutor tends to put rather strong magnet on the moral compass one has.

[Berkut]

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...

[Berkut]

But to call the mere recording itself a "monumental invasion of privacy" is just silly.

If opposition to indiscriminate surveillance is being silly, then I think it's a label one should wear with pride.  I think working as a prosecutor tends to put rather strong magnet on the moral compass one has.

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.

[The Brain]

I assume they have signs that conversations are being recorded.

About the people listening to your conversations in public anyway thing, in Sweden IIRC you can legally record any and all conversations that you take part in, but I don't know if you can legally clandestinely record other people's conversations.