Matchstick-Sized Sensor Can Record Your Private Chats Outdoors

wabrandsma sends this story from New Scientist: "A sensor previously used for military operations can now be tuned to secretly locate and record any single conversation on a busy street. [A] Dutch acoustics firm, Microflown Technologies, has developed a matchstick-sized sensor that can pinpoint and record a target's conversations from a distance. Known as an acoustic vector sensor, Microflown's sensor measures the movement of air, disturbed by sound waves, to almost instantly locate where a sound originated. It can then identify the noise and, if required, transmit it live to waiting ears. Security technologist Bruce Schneier says this new capability is unwelcome – particularly given the recent claims about the NSA's success at tapping into our private lives. 'It's not just this one technology that's the problem,' Schneier says. 'It's the mic plus the drones, plus the signal processing, plus voice recognition.'"

Comments

Welcome technology if

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

...everybody has it. The last thing we need is awesome tech only spies and generals possess (weapons of mass destruction/contamination being a notable exception). So yes, this is unwelcome technology, but since it's already there, we might as well let everybody have it.

Re:Welcome technology if

[Kjella]

No, having the lack of privacy go both ways isn't as good as having privacy. A system where nobody can keep their actions private is a system governed by mob rule, nobody wants to engage in socially unacceptable behavior because they're instantly shunned and those who fail to participate in the shunning are also shunned for condoning it. Nobody will speak out unpopular opinions even if they feel it ought to be said, because those who don't like the message will go after the messenger. All social circles become totally transparent and people will self-censor their associations to avoid social stigma. It's freedom of the "you have freedom of speech and can say what you want, but we'll shoot you afterwards" variety.

Not to mention, it won't work. The powers to be will always find some reason why their conversations must be protected in the name of national security - after you've given up yours in the name of national security, of course. And if you don't like it you've got something to hide and is probably one of the bogeymen we're trying to catch. They can clam up any time they feel like it, while you'll stay stripped bare. Only the truly naive wants to head us in that direction, because <Admiral Ackbar>It's a trap!</Admiral Ackbar> and a pretty obvious one at that.

Re:a few laws of physics problems here

[ATMAvatar]

Governments have always had the technical means to be invasive, they are restrained by common decency and the law of the land.

What governments would those be which are restrained by the law, let alone common decency?

Re:Technology is not the problem

[techno-vampire]

This is one case where I do agree with him, probably because I think I know what he was thinking when he said this: it's not just one technology, or even one set of technologies that's the problem. It's the fact that this set of gadgets can be combined to make something that can be used for invasive surveillance of whoever some government agency thinks needs watching combined with what appears to be a pervasive attitude in those agencies that they have the right to snoop on anybody, any time, any place for whatever reason they want without any substantive oversight.

Re:Not the future I want to live in

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, is your daughter's bedroom really private if I can watch her change from mine?

We have laws about these things. Laws used to apply to everyone, and people used to have a reasonable expectation that they would be followed. The government's current position seems to be that we're supposed to reasonably expect that the government will break the laws whenever its convenient for them.