upvote

points

by myrmidon2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ctoth2 hours ago|
next
[-]
> tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language

Two people arguing in public, words only, is close to a legal non-event in the US. So I would hope so?

reply
upvoteby seethishat2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Until one of them communicates a threat, then it is a criminal matter.
reply
upvoteby emptybits1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Perhaps, depending on specific intent, credibility, and the nature of harm threatened.

But since this is about surveillance, I hope that detection of verbal threats is not a goal of government surveillance because it's difficult to imagine how that could be accomplished without significant loss of privacy or other liberties.

reply
upvoteby saltyoldman1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I can see it in court now. Our AI monitoring system did indeed know about the threat to the building where 800 people died on Sunday.

It says: " Agent: Voice to text detected: I have everything ready - all the XXX chemicals are ready in the van and I'm going to park in the 900 S Crap St now"

Agent: Thread Level HIGH.

Agent: Looking up local codes.

Agent: Mayor signed SB-1238 in 2026 - no surveillance devices may be used for audio threat determination.

Agent: Threat silenced, but logged.

Judge: Oh, that makes sense. Make sure to bag and tag and bill the families for the bags.

City Employee: We also know who parked the van, should we arrest them.

Judge: No it looks like SB-1238 would forbid us from using this data for the purposes of arrest. I guess send them a thank you letter for testing our laws.

reply
upvoteby anigbrowl33 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Oh, only 800? Maybe you can pick a larger imaginary number to make me feel really guilty about not wanting to give up my rights to live free of surveillance.
reply
upvoteby emptybits21 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Appreciate the pushback, saltyoldman. Yes, we want to respond to credible threats. And, as always, courts and law enforcement can invade privacy when there's reason to believe someone is worth surveilling. But we're talking here about widespread, extremely cheap, technically easy surveillance of potentially everyone at all times. That's the endgame that some commercial and government interests have in mind.

Would you agree that sometimes an uptick in theoretical safety is not worth a downtick of definite lost liberties?

reply
upvoteby ryeats53 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This is essentially the Trolley Problem.
reply
upvoteby stickfigure1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don't think you're advocating to have our personal conversations continuously monitored whenever outside, but in the context of this thread, that's what it sounds like.
reply
upvoteby hammock22 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language (missing data/difficult to detect).

Almost all of these cameras have microphones as well. Not as difficult to detect as you may believe

reply
upvoteby lostlogin8 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Once you have road noise and a distance of 10+ metres, that audio is unlikely to be useful.
reply
upvoteby s1artibartfast1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Seems like a fundamental problem if we dont want the laws we passed to be enforced.
reply
upvoteby mackeye1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"we" didn't pass them --- i don't think changing the severity of law enforcement alone can achieve what i wish for in society, but the existence of many laws (and severity of their punishment) i disagree with and thus do not want enforced
reply