Slashdot Mirror
Maryland Public Buses Record Passengers' Conversations (washingtonpost.com)
mi writes: You may not have heard of it yet, but Maryland Transit Administration began recording passengers' conversations in 2012 — on its own initiative. Legislative efforts to put an end to the practice failed four times since then — but some State Senators keep trying "What [the MTA] is doing is a mass surveillance [...] I can make an argument to tape everybody, everywhere, everywhere they walk, everywhere they talk, and you can make the excuse for homeland security." If we had competing public transport companies, one could've switched to a privacy-respecting competitor. Alas, MTA holds a monopoly and legislation is the only recourse.
What happens if somebody comes along and says "I want those recordings please. Thank you."? Do they have to be censored? That sounds like fun. They really don't know what they are into.
The new murder thriller by Steven king.
Simple solution, every time you get on the MTA, play conversational bits from various movies in a low conversational volume, say: The Godfather, Goodfellas, Hannibal, etc....
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
What the MTA did / is doing is a crime under Maryland's wiretapping statute. Why have the responsible persons not been arrested and put on trial?
but some State Senators keep trying [.] "What [the MTA] is doing is a mass surveillance
Is it me, or has there been an increase of missing periods in summaries since the last time Slashdot changed ownership?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Oldest trick in the book.
Probably because you own an automobile.
As long as they're posting that this is happening, I'm moderately ok with this. There is *no expectation of privacy in a public place* so people should not expect that things they say in public will remain private. This is very different from the NSA collection since people expect their phone calls and emails not to be read by anyone other than the recipient.
That said, wiretapping laws need to be changed so that any private citizen can do this as well. In some jurisdictions, it's illegal to record the police. As long as they are subject to the same privacy laws in public areas, I can mostly live with this.
With the recent complaints of racism, sexism, nasty comments, and everything else that people are saying happen to them in public, this adds a layer of transparency to these claims. We'll know exactly what was said on that bus and exactly what was done. That helps the case of justice. But like all things, this can easily be abused....as long it stays sealed for verification of stories and lawsuits, then it can be ok.
If you don't want the Federal government to surveil you, don't use banks, roadways, phones, internet.
I guess I just don't see a problem here unless the surveillance is being done without the citizens knowledge.
If we had competing public transport companies, one could've switched to a privacy-respecting competitor. Alas, MTA holds a monopoly and legislation is the only recourse.
Riiiight... because those competing companies wouldn't try to record and resell your information as a captive population to marketers...
What we really need is private ROADS.
Google the names of senior executives at MTA and have conversations than slander their sexual habits, lack personal honesty, cruelty to animals and studying at a Bible University. Pepper your speech with copious profanity in multiple languages, making the task of humans who listen to this crap more onerous.
Feel free to have such conversations, even if you are alone, which at the least will get you a seat to yourself.
I ask you not to advocate any act of violence against anyone in this, but you can be creative. You and your (imaginary) friend can talk of how your coven of Devil Worshippers plan to put a curse on named senior execs at the bus company. ...or have loud conversations about how you're going to hold noisy messy protests outside the homes of named executives.
The poor sods who have to monitor this will have to pass the 'threats' up the management chain. Enough false positives will make them reconsider their approach.
Dominic Connor,Quant Headhunter
Indeed. I was thinking the same. They would panic if you started playing bits from Tom Clancy films or TV shows like Dexter. Then, once several people are picked up by law enforcement, only to find they've been duped, they may reconsider the error of their ways.
I do find, however, that some people really don't care, and I see this as alarming. Apathetic people are the reason for companies and government getting away with stuff like this. My wife and I always leave our phones in another room when we need to talk about serious matters. Paranoid? No. Cautious? Yes. In fact, just yesterday, the BBC ran a story about mobile phones listening in on conversations...
Is Your Smartphone Listening to You?
Actually no, I don't own a vehicle and don't even have a driver's license.
I take public transportation everywhere I go.
I see the video surveillance signs posted in the busses (though I don't think I have seen them posted in the trains).
I am in Minneapolis, MN
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Video surveillance is less intrusive than audio. This may sounds off, but keep reading. Video records what people do, actions, things that have gone past thought, doubt, or discussion and into an effect on the rest of the world.
Audio recording picks up conversations. Two or more people who usually are not trying to involve anyone else, or maybe half of a phone call, or just someone grumbling about a bad day. Many people say things they would never do, and others will say things to friends that they do not want others to know. While a public bus is not the proper venue for such conversations, there is no justification for recording them.
If you want to make an argument that certain conflicts caught on the film would be more nuanced with the associated audio, having a 3 minute buffer and giving the driver a button to enable saving the feeds together would suffice.
Oh brave new world, that has such unconsciously privileged people in it! I'm guessing you own a car, or have bucks for Uber.
Fine, record the proles. But why not let us know it? Is the thinking that none of us can read, anyway? Or that none of us can think?
My original write-up had a colon there, actually — and the quote itself was inside <blockquote>. The posting /. editor messed up the formatting...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You have turned my comment upside down.
If the government clearly stated what was monitored and let everyone know that, then I don't see an issue with it as you could avoid using those things.
I am just as against secret mass surveillance as the next guy but I don't believe that to be the case here.
I am curious, would you be against video surveillance on these busses?
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
how many times have they recorded BANKING info or other types of privileged data??
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03... Audio & Video from several camera on the Albany bus are being analyzed by State Police for use in court.
And the slashdot autist fails again
"the rider can choose not to board that vehicle"
do you live in the same world as me ?
we have no choice, we need bus for work
Seriously, the government folks are absolutely addicted to data.
My data, your data, his data, her data...
Bank records, library records, purchase records, download records, net surf records, TV records, movie records...
Telephone Calls, IM, Emails, Chat, voice conversations.
Try to take it away, and look how they squeal.
It looks a whole lot like a drug addiction.
Yeah, the funny thing is, there are plenty of people who do exactly this.
I take public transportation exclusively and there are plenty of times people are playing their music or movies way too loudly. Perhaps this is the reason!
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
In comparison to their customers, yes.
/. is getting all upset about the rights of a bunch of poors.
I really don't see why
Now if they tried pulling this kind of stunt on the Google shuttle buses, they'd rightfully riot in the streets.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I don't have a driver's license and I take mass transit everywhere I go.
I have for years and I rarely miss having a car.
I guess I just view the bus as a public place. People can record whatever they want in a public place.
If I were to set up a video camera in the public square and record video and audio there is nothing anyone can do about it. Your expectation for privacy is greatly reduced in public spaces.
If there is a sign stating that everything is being recorded and you are up to no good or are discussing secret things, probably best to avoid the public space that has this signage posted.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
What the fuck America? Look at yourselves and what you've become to! A privacy and security joke that tortures prisoners of war to death (innocent ones too) and spies its own citizens everywhere.
Get a hold of yourself.
If you aren't willing to buy a private yet you do not deserve privacy, citizen!
Thank you Mi, for that biased and ignorant summary
This is just Mi flashing out some of his libertarian crazy again.
Surveillance cam footage on buses goes back at least to the early 90's.
Hell, it was even a big part of that most excellent cinematic feature, Speed.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
wow just wow
well hopefully when trump gets elected he will do away with privacy so we don't need to be concerned with it anymore
Seriously, that has to be the dumbest random libertarian aside I've ever seen in an article summary. "If we had competing public transport companies, one could've switched to a privacy-respecting competitor."
Seriously? That's how you decide to slip in your political commentary? Come on...
Because it justifies a bigger budget. The precedent it sets (towards authoritarianism) is only a secondary goal, in as much as it opens the door to future spending. Don't underestimate the role money plays in government.
I am in the same boat. If I don't take the bus, my choices are to walk or ride my bicycle.
By the way, this is why I don't ever talk on my phone while on the bus, I feel uncomfortable having my conversations overheard.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Isn't this a blatant breach of both the constitution and basic human rights?
I mean how can this even be allowed to happen in the first place?
I say Identify, fire and prosecute all the clowns that sanctioned this, and also fire all those that even knew about it and didn't blow the whistle.
If we had competing public transport companies, one could've switched
Major cities do not run public transport because its a money-maker. They run it, usually at least somewhat subsidized by taxpayers, because their city needs an affordable public transportation system to operate smoothly.
The purpose of public transport is to provide a transportation grid that your citizens (particularly those without access to private personal transport) can use to get wherever they want/need to go around your city effectively. In general there isn't competition for that from private companies not because the city doesn't allow it, but because private companies don't want to do that. In fact, the profit motive would not allow them to. If it was left up to competing private companies, the only bus routes a city would have would lead to its racetracks and casinos (but the bonus is the rides would probably be free. At least inbound.).
In addition, if both conditions are clearly posted in the vehicle, then the rider can choose not to board that vehicle.
I guess I just don't see a problem here unless the surveillance is being done without the rider's knowledge.
Well, I do. It means that you have to choose between reasonable privacy and using the public transport network that has been built and run with your money. That means you don't get to ride on the bus if you value your privacy or have anything to say that you don't want to share with about 5 million government employees and their families and friends.
Rosa Parks was just complaining about having to ride in the back of the bus. Nowadays nobody gets to ride anywhere in the bus if they value privacy. That's progress of a kind.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
It is similar to people posting something on the internet and then becoming confused when it negatively impacts them. Pro tip: Don't do dumb stuff in public or be willing to accept the results.
Good, according to your logic the next place we can set up cameras is in a PUBLIC BATHROOM.
I'd like to make sure you're not a terrorist, please. Think of the children in public bathrooms.
And while we're at it, we'll use the public cameras in the public bathroom to check your genitals and anus for herpes sores... so you can be added to the Herpes Registry. We don't want you living too close to our houses with your infectious sores!
Record passengers aboard Maryland buses this year! Also, legislative efforts hope to break the record.
Why no, I did not read TFA.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
If we had competing public transport companies, one could've switched to a privacy-respecting competitor.
It isn't easy to compete with an integrated and affordable mass transit system on this scale. Not to mention the small problem of finding a competitor who isn't keeping an eye on his own drivers and passengers.
MTA Maryland operates a comprehensive transit system throughout the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area. There are 80 bus lines serving Baltimore's public transportation needs, along with other services that include the Light Rail, Metro Subway, and MARC Train. With nearly half the population of Baltimore residents lacking access to a car, the MTA is an important part of the regional transit picture. The system has many connections to other transit agencies of Central Maryland, Washington, D.C., Northern Virginia, and south-central Pennsylvania (Hanover, Harrisburg, and York): WMATA, Charm City Circulator, Regional Transportation Agency of Central Maryland, Annapolis Transit, Rabbit Transit, Ride-On, and TransIT.
Daily ridership: 392,831 weekday average
Maryland Transit Administration
They almost certainly have video surveillance in those busses and trains too, yet no mention of that being "mass surveillance".
In addition, if both conditions are clearly posted in the vehicle, then the rider can choose not to board that vehicle.
I guess I just don't see a problem here unless the surveillance is being done without the rider's knowledge.
I feel the same way you do. Our bus system in the Washington State has audio and video equipment set up in almost all of the buses. Normally two; one set in the front to monitor the bus and another set to watch the rear door (clearly labeled). Now I don't know if they've ever been used or on all the time as I've yet to see a light on them to indicate one or the other.
I've always felt off, yet the driver can activate them at any time.
I've heard of no complaints nor do I have any. If nothing else it may help defuse any gang related activity, something I've never seen yet the newspaper is full of it.
Wait, you want to make the DRIVER the decisionmaker on what to keep & not keep? The guy being paid ~$35k/yr?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Maryland law requires two-party consent to record a conversation. This BS would get yourself jailed if you did it yourself.
Two other options jump to mind immediately:
* Public protests
* Legal challenges (maybe)
Publicly shaming the MTA into doing the right thing is always an option.
Depending on state and federal laws, the legal challenges may or may not be an option.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If there was actually a sign at the door, clearly visible and impossible to overlook, that stated "EVERYTHING YOU SAY ON THIS BUS IS BEING RECORDED", I'd bet my house that anyone with a choice would start avoiding public transportation. Why? Because it's god damn creepy, that's why.
Yup, and then shop them to the MPAA for copyright infringement!
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So what? That doesn't mean government should be allowed to do it! (Especially when they're systematically recording from every public space, aggregating it, storing it forever, and making it searchable to create an instant dossier on any person of interest.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If you don't want the Federal government to surveil you, don't use banks, roadways, phones, internet.
I guess I just don't see a problem here unless the surveillance is being done without the citizens knowledge.
I used to be quite the rip off, cigarettes were in the open back then and fair game.
Now I figure I'm being monitored everywhere I go (or assume so and a good assumption). Picking my nose or scratching my rear is now done with a bit of forethought :)
I can't think of many stores that mentions video monitoring. 15-20 years ago I had a friend who worked for Sears, his job was to monitor for shoplifters - he was an artist's; I've watched him pick up a person at the entrance as they entered and followed them everywhere they went - they had a lot of cameras for that ability, some even set in eyes of the mannequins.
The cameras, nor surveillance were ever mentioned or posted. Nor is it now and I'm sure that surveillance system or newer is still in use.
RTD here in Colorado (Regional Transportation District) does this as well. However the buses have signs in them that are right in your face as you get one stating that your conversation is being recorded. Generally they only use this information to figure out what happened in the case of a fight or an accident. I worked for a contractor that handled some of RTD's services in certain areas. They contract most of the buses/services out to 3-4 contractors. The only time we ever pulled video/audio off the buses was when there was an indecent and generally only in the time frame of the incident. At least with the contractor I worked for that's how it worked, I cant say for the others.
There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public bus. If you say something in a bus, you're clearly ok with the other passengers hearing it, so why not the government? Same thing with video surveillance. If anything it provides security in the DC/MD/VA area where without this surveillance it would be super unsafe on the bus/train because mugging and murder is a cottage industry in PG county and other shitty areas around DC. I understand that its a systemic problem and the government (and hence everyone) is mainly responsible for the poverty in the DC area that gives rise to the crime, but I'll still tazer the fuck out of anyone who tries to steal my overpriced tablet and I'm thankful for the protection those cameras provide me.
They almost certainly have video surveillance in those busses and trains too, yet no mention of that being "mass surveillance".
That can be a good thing, too. When three people pick a fight with you on the bus, then accuse you of being the aggressor and committing a racial hate crime, that bus video can exonerate you of those false accusations. I'm pretty sure the victim there is very happy the bus had video surveillance.
"If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
Google the names of senior executives at MTA and have conversations than slander their sexual habits, lack personal honesty, cruelty to animals and studying at a Bible University. Pepper your speech with copious profanity in multiple languages, making the task of humans who listen to this crap more onerous.
The poor sods who have to monitor this will have to pass the 'threats' up the management chain. Enough false positives will make them reconsider their approach.
More likely you'll be booted off the bus as a damn nuisance to the driver and passengers before you are up to speed and that will be the end of it.
What you are advising of course is a conspiracy to slander and harass MTA execs --- which will end in a generous contribution to your attorney's retirement fund, and maybe a year or so in a Baltimore lock-up, assuming anyone thinks you are worth the trouble. .
Just speak in Klingon and enjoy!
the buses are labelled that recordings are taken for security and law enforcement purposes. it took one TV station a year to kick a FOIA through, but they got the video of one assault last year. it was sliced down to the time before, during, and after the incident. they did not get two days' worth of random wild video.
As a Maryland resident...the MTA trains have signs stating that it is a finable offence to have a "boombox" without headphones playing on the train, I imagine it is the same rule for the busses, so they have a way to punish that behavior unfortunately...unless they can't figure out where it is coming from.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Clearly, a libertarian would have said "If we had competing private transport companies...". Libertarians advocate less government, not more.
You don't have much understanding of libertarianism, do you?
You bring in scripts of dialogue from movies or TV shows that you think would poke them with a stick. You be sure to keep those, so later when they come to detain you, you show them the scripts, and laugh in their faces. They put up a fuss, you claim your First Amendment rights. They try to prosecute you for anything, you call the ACLU and get lawyered up. They spend enough money in man-hours and tie up the courts enough, maybe the taxpayers stop wanting to stick their noses in everybody's business. Meanwhile you start a grass-roots campaign for privacy rights. Oh, and people who can't be bothered to get their hands dirty like this? I guess they just get used to overreaching, overbearing government and law enforcement fucking them in the ass, bareback, then beating them afterwards for their trouble. Such is the way of sheep.
Let's see how you feel about all that when the day comes that you're required by law to have cameras and microphones inside where you live, 'for your own safety', and 'for law enforcement purposes', and 'for National Security purposes'. That's what some jackasses in our government would like to see happen: Everyone under constant surveillance, anywhere and everywhere you are, even in your own home, even in your bathroom or bedroom. For your own 'safety', of course.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Buses will probably start blowing up.
This is not taken lightly in this country.
Not to mention... you know... driving the bus...
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
So you are telling me that people shooting video in Maryland get the consent from every person that enters the shot or is within hearing distance?
I am sure that the scope of the law is much more narrow and probably doesn't apply in this instance. IANAL though.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Think it sounds crazy?
Well, not more than 2-3 decades ago, nothing like that happens today could have even been imagined (aside from the 1984 book).
It wasn't that long ago, that you could go to the gate at an airport without metal detectors or security of any measure to meet your loved ones upon arrival.
Simple things like that that one takes for granted, so yes, with more of the control of our vehicles taken away from us, the more of privacy and the greater tracking recording will become.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As a Maryland resident...the MTA trains have signs stating that it is a finable offence to have a "boombox" without headphones playing on the train, I imagine it is the same rule for the busses, so they have a way to punish that behavior unfortunately...unless they can't figure out where it is coming from.
So sing (or talk) along while wearing the headphones. No laws against talking, are there?
This is a public space. You are allowed to be recorded in public spaces.
You are allowed to record others in public spaces. This is your right.
Let's remember last week's ado in Albany about the false claims of assault
on a bus. The liars are now facing penalties and/or jail time for the false
report and for being the actual aggressors in the assault. The actual victims
have been recognized and freed of any charges. This is thanks to the on-bus
video recording.
I'm pretty sure I've seen notices posted on SF Muni buses advising that passenger conversations may be recorded.
SF's MUNI has warnings about audio and video recordings on their busses and cable cars, and has had them over the last 5 or more years Ive been riding with any frequency. Why the outrage now?
I am curious, would you be against video surveillance on these busses?
Yes, because without the surveillance, you do what you can to get everyone off the bus if a disgruntled former civil servant rigs a bomb whose detonator is set to go off if the bus goes slower than 50mph. With video surveillance, you'll need to get a news van to loop a short clip of people sitting still long enough for everyone to get out safely.
Two-party consent, to those not ignorant of the law, is indicative of audio recordings. And yes, even news stations have to have participants in public sign a release form. Haven't you ever noticed that audio is muted unless the reporter is talking to a specific person?
A little bit of gum or a blob of glue should fix those microphones before the lawmakers get round to it. Spray paint or stickers for the cameras too.
Self-driving cars will need video recording, at least, internal and external, to fight off gigadollars of lawsuits at first.
People have written about the boon to lawyers in lawsuits if the makers of these things (and home robots and med robots) don't track scam artistry. Think those Chinese accident victim scam artists times a million.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Not really, police use it all the time to arrest people for recording them. It's just that most people don't realize they're being recorded or don't want to bother with a lawsuit, but technically they can and would win. If it's obvious you're recording, such as you have a huge camera and mic out in the open and people can avoid it, then it's generally legal, but you'd still have to convince the judge.
While there is a lot of work to do in New Hampshire The Free State Project's participants have been very active and thousands of people are moving to fix the issues. It's still better than most states, but that isn't saying much. If you care about liberty and freedom and minimizing government to its absolutes I'd suggest joining the Free State Project migration effort.
If you are for the below your libertarian and should join us in New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project:
Are against laws that enforce monopolies directly or indirectly (ie laws that create barriers to entry for small companies or give rights of way / monopolies to companies in exchange for laying utilities)
Are pro-Uber (ie against requiring licenses to drive a taxi or similar service; further needless restrictions where other solutions will do)
Are against the criminalization of employment (ie are against requiring licenses to work, we can still have certifications and the like, your not in danger from this)
Are against entitlements (ie a company firing you and hiring someone overseas sucks- but your not entitled to a particular job- you should only be entitled to find employment and/or create a business without government approval)
Anti-copyright/patent (this is a restriction on your liberty/freedom)
Don't think nudity should be a crime (another restriction on your liberty/freedom)
Are against closed boarders (ie everybody should be free to come and go from the United States regardless of citizenship or other statuses)
Are against social security numbers, license plates, vehicular registrations
Are against government spying
Against government funded schools (this doesn't mean people below the poverty line can't be guaranteed loans, nor have those loans dissolved if the possessor of said loans is never in a position to pay back said loans)
Against government funded or forced health care
Against social security programs
Against war
Against violence (this is a big key thing)
Support the rights of *everybody* to own and utilize guns (including ex-convicts)
Support the right of the people to travel unhindered
Think that for a crime to exist a person must actually be harmed (little Suzy encounter with pornographic content *isn't* harm; harm == violence / force not moral)
Are against the criminalization of drugs (ie pro- marijuana and even really horrible drugs like heroin)
Are for the removal of under-age drinking laws
Are against under age laws
Are against discriminatory laws involving older adults
Are against requiring insurance (car insurance isn't required in NH already)
Are against marriage laws (unfortunately portrayed another way you'd be for gay marriage or at least against the government being involved in marriage)
Against taxations in general, but particularly taxation that favours a particular group (ie married couples get discounts singles do not, people with children get discounts those without do not)
Use of reasonable counter force in cases of self defence, but against against use of non-consensual violence otherwise (ie you should be pro-legalization of BDSM)
Anything between two or more people whom are consenting individuals that harms nobody else should not be illegal (ie pro-legalization of polygamy, etc)
Think that you can't be harmed by imagery/communications/etc (ie generally speaking, not including seizures, etc)
It is a structural problem involving the way people are treated by government institutions. Moreover, it creates a power imbalance between individuals and the government. To what extent should the Executive Branch and an agency such as the NSA, which is relatively insulated from the political process and public accountability, have a significant power over citizens? This issue is not about whether the information gathered is something people want to hide, but rather about the power and the structure of government.
A related problem involves “secondary use.” Secondary use is the use of data obtained for one purpose for a different unrelated purpose without the person’s consent. The Administration has said little about how long the data will be stored, how it will be used, and what it could be used for in the future. The potential future uses of any piece of personal information are vast, and without limits or accountability on how that information is used, it is hard for people to assess the dangers of the data being in the government’s control.
Therefore, the problem with the nothing to hide argument is that it focuses on just one or two particular kinds of privacy problems—the disclosure of personal information or surveillance—and not others. It assumes a particular view about what privacy entails, and it sets the terms for debate
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
If we had competing public transport companies, one could've switched to a privacy-respecting competitor. Alas, MTA holds a monopoly and legislation is the only recourse.
Poor little diddums has to deal with ebul gummint.
BAWWWWWWWW.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Simple solution, every time you get on the MTA, play conversational bits from various movies in a low conversational volume, say: The Godfather, Goodfellas, Hannibal, etc....
Nah, play white noise to mess with their compression levels, run up their storage and bandwidth costs.
sigs are hazardous to your health