I'm curious what the (presumably delusional) for case for this is. Like, why would anyone think this would even be useful? Is it to combat crime? It says something vague in the article about "rider safety" but I don't really get that. What sort of incident would require hearing conversations between riders? Do they want this so that if one person verbally harasses another rider they can prove it? It just seems like the obvious ease with which this could be abused is even more stark put next to the uselessness of this to the people installing it...
It's cover-your-ass blame-avoidance, like most things that public entities do. It's the preemptive answer to "why didn't you stop this bad behavior", so they can be seen to have taken some measure against it. Any resulting misuse is out of scope.
Oh, as long as they can show that they zealously reported people for talking about blowing up houses in Minecraft, they will be forgiven for not catching the people who talked about blowing up real houses. False positives can be a feature when what you're really after is displaying your zeal.
I do not see it as any different than individuals doing cover your ass blame avoidance too. See home cameras, dash camera, bicycle helmet cameras, etc.
Ignoring the scale the comparison might fit with some taxi driver installing the same thing and eavesdropping on the passengers, but the scale is quite important here. If some random hacker eavesdrop on your conversation, it might be bad but not necessarily detrimental for the whole society, however if this is done on mostly all people in a society, it's basically an abolishment of democracy with a delay.
Centralized eavesdropping of all conversations in public spaces is really bad.
Why? Delusions can be fascinating, right? There's no contradiction between being curious about something and thinking it's delusional at the same time, right?
Though I am not sure I understand the case against either, what you say in a bus can be overheard by anyone, it's not really a private conversation, and if you accept the concept of video surveillance, having also audio is a small incremental step.
Being 'overheard', especially by those in your immediate view, is significantly different from being recorded and then overheard by unseen unknown strangers indefinitely.
There is also a potential difference between camera and audio surveillance. Not that I approve of either, and I acknowledge the extreme but less common abilities of camera technology (IR, microexpression, iris analysis, etc), but having one's relatively statiic shell filmed could be perceived as less personal than eavesdropping on a much more dynamic and varying aspect of self than a bad hair day. After all, when we go out in public, most healthy people don't believe they're invisible. We have much more discretion over who hears our thoughts than who sees our faces. Audio is more intrusive in this way. Standard images of our physical appearances don't quite compare to the enormity of subject material, moods, and mind that the funkiest wardrobe simply couldn't articulate.
From the perspective you present, shouldn't anyone in public be perfectly content with mind-reading, or interrogation where the former fails?
Can see this as being part of the US mandate from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to add impaired driver detection. What that will be is at the discretion of the Department of Transportation.
I agree that the costs far outweigh the benefits here, but there’s clearly a legitimate use. If you’ll remember the Bernie Goetz case, there was a lot of debate about out, and legal significance to, what the kids said before Goetz started shooting.
I agree that the occasional significance of some conversations does not justify the constant widespread surveillance, but it’s a bit much to say that this couldn’t possibly be useful.
I don't remember that case at all. Possibly because I'm not American.
Could you elaborate what would be a valid reason? From what you wrote, it sounds like someone started shooting after some kids said some things. I can see that as an argument for gun legislation, but not for installing microphones in public spaces.
Bottom line, it's really not hard to imagine that audio recording would help determine important facts of a case; this shouldn't be controversial in and of itself. The issue is the relative cost to personal liberty.
I would argue right to privacy until riding enough public transport and hitting enough incidents that make you wish someone was watching.
Some incidents:
1. A man as red as a tomato with anger yelling at the top of his lungs that he was going to kill a woman and following her out the door at Chicago’s blue line.
2. A woman begging with a toddler-aged child that was constantly drowsy / appeared sedated on a line multiple days, and weeks in a row.
3. The slashing of Nia’s throat in the Bay Area BART.
Eventually we stopped riding public transport, even if it was cheaper or more convenient/fun for the kids, because of fear of traumatizing incidents with little ones present. Its possible that the awareness of possibility of being recorded makes people behave better than they normally would. It’s also possible that public safety is better ensured if they know common abusers and somewhat reduce the abuse.
Do you really think these things can be solved by surveillance? I doubt people like you are describing are deterred by that and I don’t think DHS will start hunting possible homeless beggars because they have recordings.
What actually increases safety and one of the reason public transport was / felt safer in the past is more personal. If there are train guards on the ride or platform managers at the station, they can actually intervene. No surveillance necessary. But that obviously requires way more public transport funding.
> Hard to imagine how to solve it without surveillance.
Really? Hopefully not
How about giving support for people who need it? How about giving teens options to do something else than roam the streets and gang up? How about giving support to stop generational drug use? How about showing these kids that they have a brighter future ahead if they choose to act on it? How about figuring out how to fix the massive polarisation of opinions, beliefs, income, opportunities etc.?
according to that article, the train and station already had surveillance cameras. the current post and comment thread are about surveillance microphones; how would that help with the investigation in your article, where we can reasonably assume that the robbers were shouting things like "open your bag" and "give me your wallet", and interview witnesses to confirm our assumption?
This +100. Having Security Officers on buses costs an incredible amount of money. Over time, just one semi-regular "problem passenger" can drive away hundreds of regular transit users.
Video/audio certainly can be done wrong, and won't magically fix the problem - but put yourself in the shoes of a transit system manager who's got both a tight budget and a problem passenger problem. You gotta DO SOMETHING to fix this! Full video & audio sure feel like they'd help get the police to do something, or a judge to sign a Protection Order, or the Prosecutor to press charges, or the jury to convict. And if the DHS is paying for it?
That's the bit I was not expecting. I was expecting this to be about curbing crime on public transit. e.g. audio evidence for stabbings and drug deals but given the funding source perhaps more about preparation for something else? Maybe one of these conflicts? [0] I'm curious now. Given how long ago this started there must be more stories by now.
I'm in a Five Eyes nation (Austalia) and 14+ (ish) years ago I specc'd out, prototyped, and demo'd a bus recording system for the UK under the loose project heading of Panopticon (I shit you not).
Essentially a lightweight handler about a "hard drive as multitrack ring buffer" oldest footage+audio being overwritten.
One of the more interesting parts (that may or may not have hit production) was checksum+key propagation system to robustly transfer the most recent footage (prioritised by boarding | departure events) to at least one other bus while alongside in traffic | parked up at stops | terminals.
I had issues with a lax approach to secure wireless access (in those early days, etc) .. but the raison d'être was ostensibly not public spying nor common criminal tracking etc. but to have some record of what happens on public transport that might suddenly blow up ...
The entire project was smack in the grey area with a mass of ethical questions and a huge potential to slide into a police state swill (no doubt today there are people talking about real time .AI analysis (unless, of course, that was added long ago)).
At the time I was working for a private contractor in another field who was branching out and submitting proposals to tenders .. I was not then under any NDA (a relative rarity).
Remember the DHS is massive and took over a bunch of other agencies. Coast Guard, Customs, Secret Service, INS, TSA, Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, and quite a few more.
Basically any justification you can imagine would fit under one of their heads, the actual reason is probably they thought the data would be useful.
Reconstruction of timelines from video is a big deal in investigations. A key requirement of video is time for admissibility. Having a roaming camera showing the comings and goings of people can help isolate who was where and provide a time reference when the video system at a pizza place that captures a crime doesn’t have a clock set.
We've had this kind of system on the public buses here in Vancouver,BC Canada for quite a few years now. There are cameras and microphones, as well as stickers placed around the bus indicating their presence.
Interestingly, they have not been installed yet on the newest section of subway, the "Canada Line", which has speaker phones for calling train control but probably do not activate unless someone presses the button. The stations have cameras, but the trains themselves do not, but the older trains on other lines appear to at least have cameras.
> We've had this kind of system on the public buses here in Vancouver,BC Canada for quite a few years now. There are cameras and microphones, as well as stickers placed around the bus indicating their presence.
When I lived in Chicago (until 2004), I remember seeing signs warning that all activity on the bus might be audio- or video-recorded. I don't know whether they actually did it, but certainly they were ready to decide to do so.
I remember busses having not-at-all inconspicuous cameras a decade ago. Now the new metro cars where I live have two-way camera + screen combinations by the doors instead of the old emergency intercoms.
With the way wiretapping laws work and the bus operator not being a party in any of the conversations they surveil, I wonder if it's legal to be recording peoples' voices here.
I think that public transport would count as a public place. My understanding is that wiretap laws and laws on recording focus primarily on private conversations.
In Baltimore, wiretap laws only apply where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' (https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685) per Fourth Amendment standards (which would suggest that any recordings made in a public place would be lawful).
California is a bit more complex—Penal Code 632 talks only about the confidentiality of the discussion. It would be possible to have a confidential discussion in a public place, however, 632 c) specifically excludes circumstances 'in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded'. It's therefore likely that a simple sign saying 'recording in progress' or something similar would be adequate.
> In Baltimore, wiretap laws only apply where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' (https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685) per Fourth Amendment standards (which would suggest that any recordings made in a public place would be lawful).
It is absolutely insane that not assuming a computerized private investigator is following your every step and listening to your every word as soon as you step through your front door is considered 'unreasonable'.
> It's therefore likely that a simple sign saying 'recording in progress' or something similar would be adequate.
It's even more insane that a simple "conversations may be recorded" sticker is all it takes to nullify the 4th Amendment in public.
I get what you're saying, but I keep trying to bend my head around it and my thoughts end up going down one of two separate tracks here and I end up not reaching a conclusion:
1. The bus is a public space - in which case, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public (which is well established), and therefore recording should be both legal and protected under the First Amendment.
2. The bus is a private space open to the public - in which case, the owner or the operator of the private space should have the right to record on his/her/their property.
Honestly though, whatever the legal arguments, it FEELS wrong.
1. You're using "no privacy" to mean both "overheard by the grandma in the next row" and "recorded by a centralized mass surveillance system to be analyzed and correlated with the millions of other data points it has on your and your social circle, wholly subservient to the ever-changing will of the state".
So are the courts. By some twisted logic, they concluded that because you can't expect that a random passer-by hears you, you have no reasonable expectation that everywhere in public isn't infested with microphones and cameras uploading everything to intelligence agencies or corporate headquarters.
2. We should be careful, as ever more spaces are becoming "private, open to the public". Perhaps most notably the parks in Wall Street. Soon we may have to travel out of city bounds for any meaningful privacy, if that isn't already the case.
These laws vary wildly by state... And posting notices in many states work to avoid these issues.
So are they legal? Mostly. Yes. But depends where you live and what steps are taken to inform the riders ... But they likely would not record without lawyers saying they are safe to do so.
Even the crap public transportation in Bulgaria has had cameras for many years. Of course they also have microphones. What, they just wanted to provide free wi-fi and contactless tickets? No.
Once it's there, it's there. Learn to live with the surveillance and don't do drug deals anywhere near cams/mics.
This article is from 2012, but it never ceases to amaze me that people will make excuses to strip themselves of freedom for a small semblance of safety that will never be.
There's a real loss of privacy, I won't disagree on that, but what freedom(s) are lost when microphones are placed in public buses?
And the use I could see for surveillance of public transportation, to help for incidents that devolve in he said/they said (or worse he said/the police said); so more for a question of justice than safety
> what freedom(s) are lost when microphones are placed in public buses?
The freedom to have unmonitored conversations with your friends or even strangers on the bus? If I know audio recording is in use, I certainly don't feel OK talking out loud.
It’s funny you say that- I assume all private jets are bugged. Too many important people fly on them. If DHS is recording conversations on buses, why wouldn’t they want to listen to the conversations of much wealthier and more powerful people?
> why wouldn’t they want to listen to the conversations of much wealthier and more powerful people?
Because those people can have a word with your boss and he can make your life difficult. Of course this only applies to the really powerful people so one would pick and choose who to bug and which bugs to make public use of later.
> After the attorney general indicated that signs warning passengers of the surveillance would help combat any legal challenges, transit officials pressed forward with their plans
Amazing how Privacy and Civil Liberties get obliterated by stickers telling you so.
Restaurants do this too. The program used by Panera is called cafelistener. I have searched for it several times over the past few years, but there are no results returned (as of 5 minutes ago)
Ahh, so hospitals beated public transportation. Well, I still have my money on big box stores beating places of worship and "through your wall " surveillance beating park benches and street lights who spy on you.
Who else wants to play "1984: Vegas edition"? laugh cries
At this stage we could simply adopt german communist measures and simply intercept anything and everyone. Maybe make apartment walls thin enough so neighbours can spy on each other. We could create new branches of government and name them STASI, Securitate, NKVD or even KGB. Our phones, emails, computers and laptops are all tracked, private life on public roads is monitored on levels never imagined by said agencies. Crime is not really going down as a result so what is the actual motive behind all this? Has the western world sleep walked into a dystopian nightmare that makes china pale in scale and scope?
