Second, an anecdote. The system they use in my jurisdiction uses phone cards. We once had a group of confinees switch phone cards to make it difficult to trace who was speaking (and at the very least introduce reasonable doubt). I listened to dozens of hours of audio in one case, just hoping for the caller to identify himself (since the advent of caller ID, it seems a lot of people just say "Hey"). Voice printing would have been very helpful here.
I read the other posters concerns about Fourth Amendment protections as responding to the surveillance use, not to the collection. My post was in response to my general read of those concerns.
It seems your objection is primarily to the collection of the voice print itself. Why do you feel like that's different from collecting finger prints?
Fingerprints are harder to use in electronic mass surveillance.
Databases are easy to combine, the only barrier is often just a legal one (which is a joke for national security). So I'd like governments to collect as little of that data as possible.
+1 to you, sir. Having inmates train the voice recognition is (in my opinion) compelling an admission.
But we can't, and they're not, so what's your point?
"you are not one of the good guys and you protect no one."
Huh? Interesting. I've been a member of the civil rights movements almost certainly longer than you (card carrying member). Pointing out obvious falsehoods does not make anyone a "bad guy" - and the idea that you are the only "good guy" out there is pathetic. Save the personal attacks.
Does the acknowledgement of recording somehow confer a burden on the confinee to be sure you are able to definitively identify them?
Not in the EU, where the idea of "informed consent" exists within law.
Maybe the US needs better data protection laws, too.
And even from a moral standpoint you gave your word that these things were okay to do with your information, and you can revoke your permission at any point.
It's not like you can't give them false information.
Also dob is frequently used as a verification. So it is kind of a big deal.
There are a couple of systems I've said "no your fucking menu options didn't change, I want to talk to a fucking human being" and was instantly connected. My thought was, "wait that worked?"
Somewhere my customer records at some company must say: "this guy really hates voice prompts, but is also very pleasant and amenable to working through a problem with patience"
This sounds like a niche use-case scenario: Inmates that speak to the press.
(Admittedly, I may be misunderstanding, which is why I'm asking.)
What's going on here; are we that out of touch with this community's values?
Lucky for them, they have nothing to hide so don't need to worry! /s
You have access to anonymous voice data (from service providers, messaging services etc.), but you can't connect that data to an individual without alienating their rights. Something like this could be used to filter that data for specific voice prints if you have a warrant.
Tinfoil hat take: It won't be long until voice prints are collected and shared for the majority of the population and connected to individuals via ad networks. It would be relatively simple for somewhere like Starbucks to install microphones, cancel out the in-store music, and keyword conversations for advertising purposes. The time for powerful privacy legislation is now.
It would be like a wire-tap without a warrant. Do they need a warrant for someone already in prison?
It is going to be funny/ironic when the "Social Credit" system in China has voice-fingerprints of nearly every person under surveillance, so that words heard by any listening device would be admissible to analysis. They could then detect someone saying things of folks in power, both in adherence to political norms, and also in detection of fraud.
Thought-crimes, coming soon.
I always thought these amendment rights are one of the most important pillars of what makes the US such an "amazing free democracy"? How can US Americans simply be deprived of those rights, doesn't that create a kind of "two-class" situation where some people are "more equal" than others?
It's in especially stark contrast to how Germany applies its version of a constitution, the Grundgesetz. Afaik most of them apply to everybody in Germany, even non-Germans who are just residing in Germany.
Not saying Germany always applies this perfectly but denying somebody their Grundrechte is, for obvious historical reasons, usually a very big deal in Germany resulting in a lot of press attention and public outrage.
> I always thought these amendment rights are one of the most important pillars of what makes the US such an "amazing free democracy"?
You say this like the net political direction in the US is standing up for people's rights. Each political party does gather support with rhetoric about defending their constituents. But actually implementing those changes would upset some entrenched interest, so they then settle for attacking their political enemies. Then the media and the courts go to work justifying it.
The Bill of Rights itself was only meant to be a reference and legal backstop rather than a enumeration, yet even those test cases are horribly failing. For every ideal it references, the practicality is that said right been effectively nullified in every day life - it's technically possible for you to follow a narrow course of action that would preserve your right, but wholly impractical.
IMHO this came about because the desire of being able to choose is deeply ingrained in USian culture, but judging whether a choice is fallacious is not. So rather than viewing the concept of rights as qualitative assessments of actual behavior, rights are interpreted as a fundamental axiomatic base that complexity layers over. Witness how commonly it's said "A person gives up their right to X when they Y".
The American constitution does not grant any rights to the people, because our rights result from the nature of human existence and logically precede any government authority. The law recognizes rights, not grant them--they are "inalienable". Without rights, we wouldn't have the authority to form a constitution in the first place--by what right would we enter into such an agreement? Instead, the American constitution is designed to constrain the government by enumerating a limited set of government powers and no others. The Bill of Rights amendments do not grant any rights, they simply further restrict government power--just look at their wording: "Congress shall make no law...".
The fourth amendment is a limit on government power, not a grant of rights: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." The amendment doesn't say "We grant the people the right to be free from unreasonable searches", it says people already have this right and the government must not violate it. Convicted criminals have violated the rights of others, and so they lose their own rights. Since they don't have rights, no violation is possible.
This is a much stronger type of individual protection than any other body of law. If the government does something you don't like, the burden is on the government to show it has the authority to do that thing. It doesn't need special case applications for non-citizens, because the rights of every individual person on American soil precede the law itself. And there is an open question about the degree to which they apply globally to non-citizens--every individual has the right to life, liberty, and property, and the government can't just go seize it (except under a declaration of war).
In theory, but apparently not in practice? Because the practice seems to work out like this: You are protected from government overreach until you are not anymore, by, for example, being a convicted criminal or maybe even a "terrorist".
That criminal lost his protections, he's now suddenly something like a de-facto "lesser citizen".
Now you can argue he's to blame for that and thus it's totally okay. But at the same time, it shows that the US approach does not actually protect the individual that well, because those protections seem to be rather easy to be undermined, as in the end, it will always be the government that defines and decides who should be considered a criminal/unworthy of those protections?
The above scenario would be absolutely unthinkable in Germany. If the German government would attempt something like that, it would run into very clear boundaries set by the Grundgesetz, which also guarantees all the rights from the UDHR  and you can't simply deny somebody their human rights, they are after all still human, regardless of what crimes they committed.
Sure, the German government also regularly tries to find ways around that, but there is a deep understanding among the German society that a lot of "rights" and "protections" always apply naturally, without exceptions, because exceptions would hollow out their whole purpose of being "undeniable human rights" in the first place. Denying people these rights would be the equivalent of declaring them "not human anymore".
Some prisons are private, others are public. What about a prison makes this determination easy?
I'm not really following your logic here...
Or, in your eyes, "collateral damage"...
Political figures have no expectation of privacy, after all.
Big if, but if it was accurate to say 95% would it be moral?
Strange times in which we live.
My real question is as we get better AI systems and more accurate ones should we use them to make decisions that can affect people in profound ways.
Seems that maybe this is not the right place to discuss something as open ended and off topic as this!
More likely than not, the model would simply learn to detect minority accents and further help institutional discrimination against minorities (which are already significantly more likely to be sentenced to prison, etc).