Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

At Canadian Airports, Your Conversation May Be Remotely Recorded

Posted by timothy on from the perfecting-recipe-for-boiled-frog dept.

New Jazari writes "Careful what you say when traveling, since the authorities will soon be able to zoom in on your conversations and record them for an indefinite amount of time. The story is about Canada, but I see no reason to think that this capability will not soon be installed in most places (if it's not already)."

43 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Oh wow. by NettiWelho · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And that is actually legal?

    1. Re:Oh wow. by zero.kalvin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Doesn't matter. My conversation would be about pictures you see in 4chan and poop. I bet you if enough people do that, they will stop recording...

    2. Re:Oh wow. by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Informative

      Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by all western countries, states:

      "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

      I don't know if you have a Court of Human Rights in Northern America, but that's the final instance that should grant you your human right for privacy.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:Oh wow. by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aren't we talking about public airports here? My understanding is there is no expectation of privacy in public places, and personally I don't understand why there should be. If you say something in front of other people you should expect it to be heard by other people.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    4. Re:Oh wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Please read the entry again, then come back.

      I wake up every day at 6 am and I go to the park. There's absolutely nobody there at that time, except for me and my wife. If I talk to my wife while I'm there, do you seriously expect me to assume that "somebody could have listened to us"?

      This is like walking around with a stranger listening closely to everything you say, even if you say it in a very low voice.

      I'm afraid I can't accept that.

    5. Re:Oh wow. by EzInKy · · Score: 2

      So in Canada it is a human right that nobody can listen to what you say in public?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    6. Re:Oh wow. by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a difference between simply overhearing what someone says and remotely placing bugs to listen and record conversations.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    7. Re:Oh wow. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      My understanding is there is no expectation of privacy in public places, and personally I don't understand why there should be.

      It depends what you mean by privacy.

      Is there an expectation that if you're talking with a raised voice in a crowded mall, the guy standing two metres away from you might see you or hear your conversation, though you might catch him staring? Sure.

      Is there an expectation that any time you leave the privacy of your own home, you can be subject to systemic remote surveillance by unseen agents of a commercial or government body with vastly superior resources, the resulting data to be recorded in perpetuity in a searchable database, corollated with any other data from any other database for purposes unspecified, processed using unknown technology to draw unknown additional inferences, and then potentially used against you because after all this automation threw up a false positive you looked a bit like a criminal/tax evader/terrorist/child abuser/political opponent before any human was even involved and without any identifiable individual actually being responsible? No, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation at all.

      A lot of the problem with these creepy measures is that their defenders appeal to older standards for when privacy applies ("no expectation of privacy in public", "nothing to fear, nothing to hide", and so on) without considering the implications of newer technology for what constitutes privacy in the first place (when any little detail can contribute to a bigger but possibly incomplete or inaccurate picture that will be used by automated systems to drive decisions by disproportionately powerful organisations that very much can damage you if they make a mistake, protecting the little details becomes a much more important privacy concern).

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:Oh wow. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If organisations providing essential services to the general public can impose arbitrary conditions before you can use their services, you don't have any useful legal protection from abuse at all. That is why most first world countries have some form of statutory regulation in many key industries, such as power supply, transportation networks, communications infrastructure, etc.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re:Oh wow. by baegucb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just hack, re-purpose, and sprinkle stuff like these around: http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/8c52/

      Can I get a percentage of sales?

    10. Re:Oh wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      >> somebody could have listened to us

      Squirrels are clearly plotting the overthrow of humankind. Please be more careful with your conversations.

    11. Re:Oh wow. by zero.kalvin · · Score: 2

      Hey! Someone of us talk about the lack of meaning in life, about materialism, about nihilism and sometimes boobies!

    12. Re:Oh wow. by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wake up every day at 6 am and I go to the park. There's absolutely nobody there at that time, except for me and my wife. If I talk to my wife while I'm there, do you seriously expect me to assume that "somebody could have listened to us"?

      As "good" people, we tend to see the world as "us," the good people vs "them," the bad people
      Cops see the world exactly the same way, except YOU are not included in the group called "us"

      Stop thinking of yourself as a good law abiding citizen and pretend you're a member of organized crime.
      That should help recalibrate your expectation of privacy.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    13. Re:Oh wow. by sosume · · Score: 2

      TFA mentions Canada.

    14. Re:Oh wow. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Did the US actually sign the human rights declarations or is it another one of those examples where they get everyone else to comply but then just ignore it?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:Oh wow. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Maybe not the squirrels, but be careful around hummingbirds.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    16. Re:Oh wow. by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      International laws and treaties are binding even above the US constitution.

      Only if ratified by Congress as law. The US signing of the UDHR was, as I said, a merely feel-good measure. It was not meant to be legally binding.

    17. Re:Oh wow. by Loosifur · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's also the issue of sovereignty and enforcement. A state can't remain a state and abdicate sovereignty at the same time, and a key element of sovereignty is the sole legitimate right to the use of force. In order for an entire state to be subject to a law made by another entity, it would by default had to have relinquished its own sovereignty to the entity in question. That's why the UN doesn't actually make "laws"; a law implies enforcement, and the UN lacks the authority to enforce anything.

      That's different than states using violence or other forms of compulsion to force other states to comply with agreements or treaties. A sovereign has a positive right to use force to compel a subject entity to follow laws it has established, and the subject has an obligation to adhere to laws passed by the sovereign. Other obligations may at times outweigh the citizenship duty, but it's way up there. On the other hand, the highest responsibility a state has is to 1. maintain sovereignty, and 2. protect its citizens. International agreements always fall below that in terms of ethical force.

      So, yeah, in addition to the UDHR (which is a little bit of a misnomer, because not everyone on Earth, let alone the Universe, signed) not being ratified by Congress, the strength of the binds that hold any country to a treaty or agreement are tenuous at best.

      --
      This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
    18. Re:Oh wow. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's the thing - anyone listening to it won't be a human, but a program, at least in the long run. And when you drive that completely insane, well, that way lies Skynet. Ever wondered why our robotic overlords would want to exterminate us? Here's the reason...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    19. Re:Oh wow. by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      they will stop recording...

      Are you kidding? These people are perverts. They'll only try to get more and whack off to it every night at home

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:Oh wow. by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      As "good" people, we tend to see the world as "us," the good people vs "them," the bad people
      Cops see the world exactly the same way, except YOU are not included in the group called "us"

      Stop thinking of yourself as a good law abiding citizen and pretend you're a member of organized crime.
      That should help recalibrate your expectation of privacy.

      That would be true if we did not have a presumption of innocence.
      I think cops see boring, normal people and apparently "interesting" people.
      Also, members of organized crime have rights. Of course they lose some if they come under suspicion of a crime (such as being a member of a criminal organisation).

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    21. Re:Oh wow. by buybuydandavis · · Score: 2

      I wake up every day at 6 am and I go to the park. There's absolutely nobody there at that time, except for me and my wife. If I talk to my wife while I'm there, do you seriously expect me to assume that "somebody could have listened to us"?

      Someone who wanted to listen to you could. Welcome to the 21st century.

      I don't expect you to assume that. Many people prefer to live in denial. You seem to be one of them.

  2. FIRST things FIRST by w.hamra1987 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is canada the FIRST country to do so? i doubt it, but what IS a FIRST is publicly admitting they're going to be recording people in the airport.

    --
    my sig pwns your sig
    1. Re:FIRST things FIRST by Internal+Modem · · Score: 2

      Egg meets face.

    2. Re:FIRST things FIRST by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who gives a shit who was first? It's a bunch of wasted effort.

      Terrorists are going to do shit that authorities are not going to be able to combat with tools like these. The terrorists know there are checkpoints and their limitations. They know their conversation may be overheard so they don't talk. They know that they could walk into a mall or megachurch and do the same damage they did with an airplane.

      We're wasting our fucking time and money chasing ghosts which will bite us in the ass regardless of the freedoms we continue to happily and passively give up.

    3. Re:FIRST things FIRST by w.hamra1987 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i highly doubt any terrorist is going to be reviewing his plan in the airport, even in a hushed voice... if he does, then he's one of those too stupid to be of any danger.

      --
      my sig pwns your sig
    4. Re:FIRST things FIRST by tomhath · · Score: 4, Interesting
      FTFA:

      the union representing about 45 CBSA employees at the airport is concerned personal workplace conversations and remarks could be captured and become part of employees' official record...A 2008 RCMP report said at least 58 crime groups were believed active at major airports, typically by corrupting airport employees or placing criminal associates in airport jobs to move narcotics and other contraband to and from planes.

      Sounds like the employees are more scared than the terrorists.

    5. Re:FIRST things FIRST by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real terrorists are the ones who record your private conversations in airports.

    6. Re:FIRST things FIRST by finity · · Score: 2

      Clearly, then, the solution is to install listening devices in everyone's homes.

  3. This will surely stop terrorists by Froeschle · · Score: 5, Funny

    I feel safer already!

    1. Re:This will surely stop terrorists by w.hamra1987 · · Score: 2

      and the children. don't forget all these poor children who'll be saved as well...

      --
      my sig pwns your sig
  4. Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is ridiculous, I use to do risk assessments and anti-terrorism work in the aviation sector protecting airport assets and I see no practical reason for listening in on conversations. If a threat is already within the area-of-interest then you've this doesn't help with detection because the main threats we are meant to look for these days aren't the sort of people who are going to go blabbing on their cellphone about what they're about to do within the AOI. This technology does nothing about reducing attack surface area or reducing the impact of a successful attack. However, if we shift focus away from anti-terrorism this technology becomes slightly more useful in monitoring crime within airports, which believe it or not, happens more often then you think. Either way, it's still unethical and I know that this would be illegal in the jurisdiction I worked in at least.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Original poster here, there's more truth to that then you think but more along the lines of "It's always fact when the government says it is". That's the reason I stopping working in that sector. I'd be calculating risk for various threats and all of a sudden I get a document from the relevant LE entity stating that the expected annual occurrence of a terrorist attack is once a year.... with background explanation being some political diatribe about Muslim extremists in an age of globalisation blah blah blah. Well I'm sorry, but I base my risk assessments on actual facts or reasonable metrics and statistics not some airy-fairy stereotypes who refuse to show you how they arrive at their numbers and conclusions because showing them to your risk assessment team would "threaten national security", what? We're here trying to follow your bloody legal compliance regulations and protect your assets. If you can't trust us you can't trust anyone!
      It truly is security theatre when were forced to alter risk in assessment based on nothing but a two paragraphs saying that terrorism is scary.

  5. This is news? by beaverdownunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd suspect that anyone who traveled through a post-911 NORAD-airspace airport who hadn't already assumed that their conversations might be monitored and / or recorded is either:

    A) Naive, or
    B) a fool (and also A.)

    If you're standing inside a modern-day airport in North America, consider that you may have had more liberty hanging out in a Stalinist Gulag. The airport is just a cage slightly more gilded.

    1. Re:This is news? by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, look, a angry little child with no knowledge of history! Do your parents know you're using the internet?

      It's very easy to fall into the trap of "this thing that is happening right now" is the "worst/best thing in all of history!". I'm no fan of the TSA, but when you spout crap like that, all you do is drive people away from your line of thinking.

  6. Hermit on the Mountain by pubwvj · · Score: 2

    Reading stories like this makes me extra glad I'm sequestered away on my mountains surrounded by 300 Ninja guard pigs. Besides, I'm not saying anything that matters. :)

  7. Re:Public space by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a huge difference between maybe having a conversation reported and systematic recording of many conversations. Just like there's a difference between a cop happening to see your face in the street and full blown constant CCTV surveillance.

    --
    Dilbert RSS feed
  8. Re:No reasonable expectation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those rulings are foolish and need changing. If I can see a camera pointed at me or a microphone in my general vicinity and it's a public place, fine. Hidden and secretive monitoring should not be permitted by the government, and police should be absolutely prohibited from interfering with citizens recording them. The penalties should be just as disproportionate to the offense as our stupid drug, sex, and "intellectual property" laws, complete with mandatory minimum sentencing, registering on a list when you get out of jail, and a prohibition on being within 1000 yards of protesters and others exercising their free speech rights. Oh, and it should be a felony for a cop to fail to report another cop seen doing these things.

    "but...but that will prevent cops from ever working in their profession again". Welcome to the world a lot of IT folks find themselves in. Even worse for those who like to smoke plants or maybe need to pee by the side of the road on a long trip.

  9. More than airports already recorded by joneil · · Score: 2

    I found out some time ago that all conversations at my local bank (and therefore all banks, eh?) are recorded when you are banking at/with a human teller. The public is not made aware of this, but I can confirm it. My understanding is due to bank robberies, this system along with video recording was put into place, but how much more can it be used or is it used for?

            This makes me wonder then if the same thing is not happening at all other "public" spot where you interact with a human being behind a desk. For example, we know that all 911 calls are recorded, and all calls to "customer service" of large corporations are recorded "to ensure quality" (yeah, right). So why not every information desk in a mall or a hotel, every cash register at every major department store, and more?

            Another thing I noticed is if you look real close at video cameras in some retail stores, gas stations and restaurants you will see that the camera is not always pointed at the customer, but at the cash register. I first noticed this after a story about "inside" or employee theft at a local fast food restaurant made the newspaper, and the new cameras at the time were pointed at the cash station. I imagine in all these cases, there must be audio in addition to video recording.

              I think the only reasonable assumption, if there is such a thing, is to treat every public encounter you have - be it ordering coffee, paying a utility bill or paying for gas, to be recorded when you are dealing with a human face to face. Don't worry if you pay all your bills online, I am sure your IP address is locked and loaded into some database somewhere too every time you pay a bill too. I guess 1984 really did come and go quite some time ago. :(

       

  10. Recite some poetry as you wait by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Try reading from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150281/REVEALED-Hundreds-words-avoid-using-online-dont-want-government-spying-you.html
    See what words trigger the US voice to text dictionary alerts.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. How this might work by Technician · · Score: 2

    Many people are thinking that if I am not near a microphone, it is hard to record my conversation and pick it out of a room full of people. This is normally the case. There is a recent technology advancement being used in sports using a phased microphone array.

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/10/picking_a_singl.html

    This has alrady been posted in Slashdot.
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/10/11/1838252/high-tech-microphone-picks-voices-from-a-crowd

    If you record each microphone as a seperate track, and maintain timing syncronasation of the tracks, you can steer the array after the event to pick out individual conversations in a crowd.

    Live or recorded, the beam forming can be steered either way.

    The article was too thin on details to confirm if this is the tech being used, but I I was going to impliment recording for a room full of people that needed later seperation to review the drug lord converstaion, this is the tech that could do the job.

    A for privacy, there is littel chance anyone would steer the array from the stored recording to have any interest in what you were saying to the lady next to you that isn't your spouse.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  12. Welcome to Fear-based Society by DaMattster · · Score: 2

    This is what happens when we look to our governments to make us feel safe and secure because we fear the boogeyman or we have an irrational fear of crime and the dark. If we thought for ourselves and didn't have knee jerk reactions to the news, we might actually protect what little freedoms from government incursion that we still cherish.

  13. Nice context, slashdot. Customs areas only. by PhotoJim · · Score: 2

    Nice out-of-context headline. Yes, this is happening at certain Canadian airports (YVR, YOW, YUL, YYZ) but only in Canadian Customs areas (e.g. international arrivals). This posting makes it sound like it's everywhere.

    It's primarily intended to help bust smuggling efforts by airport employees.