At Canadian Airports, Your Conversation May Be Remotely Recorded

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)."

Comments

Oh wow.

[NettiWelho]

And that is actually legal?

Re:Oh wow.

[zero.kalvin]

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...

Re:Oh wow.

[buchner.johannes]

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.

Re:Oh wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Oh wow.

[Darkness404]

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

Re:Oh wow.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:Oh wow.

[baegucb]

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

Can I get a percentage of sales?

Re:Oh wow.

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:Oh wow.

[Loosifur]

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.

Re:Oh wow.

[Mindcontrolled]

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...

This will surely stop terrorists

[Froeschle]

I feel safer already!

Re:FIRST things FIRST

[garcia]

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.

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:FIRST things FIRST

[w.hamra1987]

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.

Re:FIRST things FIRST

[tomhath]

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.

Re:FIRST things FIRST

[reboot246]

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

Recite some poetry as you wait

[AHuxley]

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.