QuoteSecurity 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 (http://www.zdnet.com/article/nj-transit-is-recording-the-conversations-of-thousands-of-passengers/)
[url=http://www.zdnet.com/article/nj-transit-is-recording-the-conversations-of-thousands-of-passengers/
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.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2016, 02:43:59 PM
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).
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2016, 02:45:32 PM
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. <_<
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.
Quote from: viper37 on April 13, 2016, 02:47:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2016, 02:43:59 PM
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?
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2016, 02:43:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2016, 02:55:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 13, 2016, 02:47:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2016, 02:43:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2016, 02:52:55 PM
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".
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2016, 03:03:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2016, 03:03:26 PM
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...:P
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2016, 03:10:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2016, 03:03:26 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2016, 03:16:15 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2016, 02:43:59 PM
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"?
Quote from: Zanza on April 13, 2016, 03:29:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2016, 02:43:59 PM
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. -_-
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.
Quote from: Zanza on April 13, 2016, 03:36:57 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2016, 02:45:32 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: dps on April 13, 2016, 04:20:39 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on April 13, 2016, 04:20:39 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on April 13, 2016, 04:20:39 PM
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).
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2016, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2016, 03:03:26 PM
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...:P
Depends who it's gonna compel me to marry. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2016, 02:55:00 PM
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.
Quote
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.
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.
You people talk on light rail systems?
What a horrifying dystopian world it is at times :(
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2016, 02:55:00 PM
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?
The state has no "rights' whatsoever. it only has the powers the people give it. The state shouldn't sell it, or keep it forever, because the people haven't given it the power to do so.
If the people limit the extent to which government can collect or use public information about them, that isn't about any rights in respect to public data, it is about the fact that governments have limited powers.
Quote from: viper37 on April 13, 2016, 02:47:40 PM
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).
They've never done that for CCTV.
The new jersey trains have signs that indicate that they are subject to audio and video surveillance. From what I read, this is really about school kids fighting and bullying on the trains, more than it is about terrorism prevention.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 14, 2016, 06:14:53 AM
You people talk on light rail systems?
What a horrifying dystopian world it is at times :(
People in NJ and NY talk a lot.
Apparently in Canada there is not only a right to privacy but also no right to keep a secret - just read CC's posts in the Panama papers thread.
Quote from: viper37 on April 13, 2016, 07:15:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2016, 02:55:00 PM
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.
Quote
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.
I ... pretty well agree with that.
QuoteMicrosoft 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.
It doesn't work like this in the EU. When you are selling products or services to the general public (i.e. consumers) as opposed to businesses, you can only collect their personal data to the extent this is reasonably necessary to provide the product or service - and even then the customer may later go back and withdraw the consent (in which case you can cease to provide the service or maintain the product, but only if you are unable to do so without such data).
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2016, 06:46:08 AM
The new jersey trains have signs that indicate that they are subject to audio and video surveillance. From what I read, this is really about school kids fighting and bullying on the trains, more than it is about terrorism prevention.
Yeah, same with the Baltimore Metro; the conductor and dispatch have audio in all the cars, and that was dealt with long before 9/11. And for the Baltimore MTA buses, it goes back even longer to when they had VHS decks on board. And you're right: it was always about safety and school kids fighting, the occasional robbery/theft/etc than Evildoers
TM.
Anyway, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on public transportation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 14, 2016, 07:31:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2016, 06:46:08 AM
The new jersey trains have signs that indicate that they are subject to audio and video surveillance. From what I read, this is really about school kids fighting and bullying on the trains, more than it is about terrorism prevention.
Yeah, same with the Baltimore Metro; the conductor and dispatch have audio in all the cars, and that was dealt with long before 9/11. And for the Baltimore MTA buses, it goes back even longer to when they had VHS decks on board. And you're right: it was always about safety and school kids fighting, the occasional robbery/theft/etc than EvildoersTM.
Anyway, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on public transportation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMADJcimnds
Well, well, well...if it isn't the star of the latest ass-to-mouth amateur porn hit, Schindler's Fist, himself.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 14, 2016, 07:31:44 PM
Anyway, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on public transportation.
Even worse there is no reasonable expectation as to arrival time, when Bs and Ts are involved.