NYC installs microphones on public streets.... to fight gun crime

[Little-Acorn]

Big Brother is watching you... and now, he's listening to you too.

Ostensibly installed only for the purpose of detecting and pinpointing gunshots, it turns out the system is being used also to record conversations and detect incriminating statements, even from those not charged with the crime in question. And this has been going on for years.

But don't worry, we can trust the governments who are running the systems, not to abuse the information they are getting. Now or in the future.

They said so!

-----------------------------------------

http://fusion.net/story/107298/is-nycs-new-gunshot-detection-system-recording-private-conversations/

Is NYC’s new gunshot detection system recording private conversations?

by Daniel Rivero
March 20, 2015

As Tyrone Lyles lay dying from a gunshot wound on an East Oakland street in 2007, he let out a few last words that would ultimately help authorities convict his killer.

“Why you done me like that, Ar?” he pleaded. “Ar, why you do me like that, dude?”

The exchange, which was used in court, was recorded by ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection system that has been installed in over 90 cities across the country. By placing a series of microphones around high-crime neighborhoods, the system is able to pinpoint the location of where a gunshot took place with surprising accuracy, leading to faster response times from police.

This week, 300 of the microphones were activated in Brooklyn and the Bronx as part of a citywide pilot program.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Big Brother is watching you... and now, he's listening to you too.

Ostensibly installed only for the purpose of detecting and pinpointing gunshots, it turns out the system is being used also to record conversations and detect incriminating statements, even from those not charged with the crime in question. And this has been going on for years.

But don't worry, we can trust the governments who are running the systems, not to abuse the information they are getting. Now or in the future.

They said so!

-----------------------------------------

http://fusion.net/story/107298/is-nycs-new-gunshot-detection-system-recording-private-conversations/

Is NYC’s new gunshot detection system recording private conversations?

by Daniel Rivero
March 20, 2015

As Tyrone Lyles lay dying from a gunshot wound on an East Oakland street in 2007, he let out a few last words that would ultimately help authorities convict his killer.

“Why you done me like that, Ar?” he pleaded. “Ar, why you do me like that, dude?”

The exchange, which was used in court, was recorded by ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection system that has been installed in over 90 cities across the country. By placing a series of microphones around high-crime neighborhoods, the system is able to pinpoint the location of where a gunshot took place with surprising accuracy, leading to faster response times from police.

This week, 300 of the microphones were activated in Brooklyn and the Bronx as part of a citywide pilot program.

Not to worry---we have the messiah in the Whitehouse guarding our freedoms!
A man that would never think of disregarding the Constitution. :puke3:

[aboutime]

http://icansayit.com/images/Deja-Vu.jpg

1984?

[revelarts]

it's to keep us safe Acorn c'mon,
if you have nothing to hide what's the problem....
but if if it saves ...just ONE life... them well the constitutions not a suicide pack....
we don't need THAT much freedom...
if the police say it helps then i'm a lll for it... plus it's in public you have no rights in public!!

at least thats what i've been told.

[Little-Acorn]

it's to keep us safe Acorn c'mon,
if you have nothing to hide what's the problem....
but if if it saves ...just ONE life... them well the constitutions not a suicide pack....
we don't need THAT much freedom...
if the police say it helps then i'm a lll for it... plus it's in public you have no rights in public!!


Wow. Six different liberal talking points in one post, not one of them true, every one of them promoting expanding government and loss of freedoms.

Old Ben Franklin saw little revelarts coming, nearly three centuries ago.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[jimnyc]

I've known about this gun system for a long time from my copper friends. I was amazed at first that they had the technology to find a gunshot. But listening into conversations? AND using them in a court of law? I'd be curious how this would work in certain states.

In some states, you can record a conversation so long as you yourself are a party to said conversation. In other states, you MUST make the other party aware. I wonder how these recordings meet the law?

I would purposely walk around talking to myself and saying all kinds of fucked up stuff. But leads me to another question - how do they identify who is speaking?

[jimnyc]

it's to keep us safe Acorn c'mon,
if you have nothing to hide what's the problem....
but if if it saves ...just ONE life... them well the constitutions not a suicide pack....
we don't need THAT much freedom...
if the police say it helps then i'm a lll for it... plus it's in public you have no rights in public!!

at least thats what i've been told.

You do MUCH better when you debate from your heart, as opposed to always tossing out stuff like this. For example, in a particular discussion - if someone states "it's to keep us safe" - that doesn't mean they state as much about EVERY scenario going forward, so really no need to repeat it every time something comes up like this. It's not fair to the person/people who have stated things about prior subjects. I have stated a few times about other subjects that "if you have nothing to hide..." - But I see NO WAY AT ALL how my words from a few years ago apply to such microphones being hidden, and words recorded being used in a court of law. While I understand you see similarities when "big brother" is thought to be overstepping - not all arguments are identical.

But out of curiosity, did someone here actually state that someone has no rights in public? Can you link to that so I can read it in context?

[indago]

Journalist Abby Goodnough wrote for The New York Times 21 March 2015:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he signed up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act last fall, J. C. Ciesielski estimated his income at $19,400, qualifying him for a federal subsidy that cut his premiums in half. But Mr. Ciesielski, an actor, earned an extra $2,340 from a voice-over job in December, and that welcome bit of income proved problematic when he did his taxes this month.

A tax preparer told Mr. Ciesielski that because he had not informed the federal health insurance marketplace, HealthCare.gov, of his additional income, he had to repay $118 of his subsidy. Mr. Ciesielski, who is being treated for a brain tumor, looked perplexed as he learned the money would come out of his refund check.

...This filing season, for the first time, millions of Americans are facing tax implications — and new forms that even seasoned preparers are finding confusing — related to their health insurance status. The changes are not only complicating things for tax filers, but also costing many of them money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/us/affordable-care-act-insurance-tax-penalty.html?ref=todayspaper)

"refund check"...

There's something wrong with an American who expects a "refund check" from government...

[tailfins]

Journalist Abby Goodnough wrote for The New York Times 21 March 2015:

"refund check"...

There's something wrong with an American who expects a "refund check" from government...

If your income is like a roller coaster, it's very difficult to avoid over-withholding. If you make $20,000 each of six months out of the year and unemployment the other six months, withholding is done as if you earned $240,000 per year.

[Little-Acorn]

I could have sworn this thread was about governments putting microphones on public streets.

How did Obamacare get into it?

[revelarts]

You do MUCH better when you debate from your heart, as opposed to always tossing out stuff like this. For example, in a particular discussion - if someone states "it's to keep us safe" - that doesn't mean they state as much about EVERY scenario going forward, so really no need to repeat it every time something comes up like this. It's not fair to the person/people who have stated things about prior subjects. I have stated a few times about other subjects that "if you have nothing to hide..." - But I see NO WAY AT ALL how my words from a few years ago apply to such microphones being hidden, and words recorded being used in a court of law. While I understand you see similarities when "big brother" is thought to be overstepping - not all arguments are identical.

But out of curiosity, did someone here actually state that someone has no rights in public? Can you link to that so I can read it in context?
Did I quote anyone?
no.
Did i say I was only referring to people at DP?
no.

But you noted honestly that you've said similar in certain cases. But as an example of "rights in public" thing in the Justice Dept spies on millions of cars (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48486-Justice-Dept-spies-on-millions-of-cars) thread there's this from FJ. if you want something like what i was referring to... without using quotes.
#3 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48486-Justice-Dept-spies-on-millions-of-cars&p=722373#post722373) "The 4th doesn't apply. You have no expectation of privacy driving down the road."

.....

Concerning "keeping safe" and "nothing to hide" not applying in this or that situation.
I can certainly understand that you don't think it should. However legally once you've crossed the line you have no where to stand when trying to hold the line on gov't where you think it SHOULD be. They use the SAME excuse you say you agree with on occasion.... to break the law.
that's my point jim. we can make jokes about big brother etc. but the fact is we can't break the constitution where we LIKE and say it's GOOD for the gov't to do so here and then legally complain when they do the same for the same reasons. "safety" and "if you have nothing to hide." .

Acorn quoted Franklin
[COLOR=#3E3E3E]"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
the Madison quote in my sig says similarly,
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. "

I agree so I make noise pretty much every time i see the line is crossed.
You and others on DP and elsewhere say it's OK sometimesto "experiment on our liberties" and create "precedents". I call that BS.

Every time it's done it's digs the hole deeper.
I've asked you and others if you'll vote for someone to roll back any of it and i get silence or encouraged to vote R no matter what.
But you some how want me to give you credit that you're not in favor of more of the same unwarented gov't spying surveillance of innocent people? why?

[fj1200]

-----------------------------------------

http://fusion.net/story/107298/is-nycs-new-gunshot-detection-system-recording-private-conversations/

... he let out a few last words that would ultimately help authorities convict his killer.

OMG, they caught a killer!!! :eek:


Not to worry---we have the messiah in the Whitehouse guarding our freedoms!
A man that would never think of disregarding the Constitution. :puke3:

You do know this isn't really a Federal issue don't you?


Wow. Six different liberal talking points in one post...

I'm pretty sure rev was agreeing with you.


In some states, you can record a conversation so long as you yourself are a party to said conversation. In other states, you MUST make the other party aware. I wonder how these recordings meet the law?

My guess is that being in a public place and not using private recording equipment obviates that.


You do MUCH better when you debate from your heart, as opposed to always tossing out stuff like this.

I'm pretty sure he was agreeing with the premise of the thread.


But you noted honestly that you've said similar in certain cases. But as an example of "rights in public" thing in the Justice Dept spies on millions of cars (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48486-Justice-Dept-spies-on-millions-of-cars) thread there's this from FJ. if you want something like what i was referring to... without using quotes. The 4th doesn't apply. You have no expectation of privacy driving down the road."

And I think that's true here as well as far as it goes. Pass a law.

[revelarts]

OMG, they caught a killer!!! :eek:
...
so there we go.
it's all good then?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wL9Li0f1Po

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0wL9Li0f1Po

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wL9Li0f1Po

[fj1200]

so there we go.
it's all good then?

I knew that would get ya. But it goes to the point, pass a law but if people prioritize safety over privacy... you won't get to far.

[revelarts]

I knew that would get ya. But it goes to the point, pass a law but if people prioritize safety over privacy... you won't get to far.

the law is the constitution FJ.
it's not being enforced here.

[fj1200]

the law is the constitution FJ.
it's not being enforced here.

I'm not sure your point. Laws must be Constitutional. I'm not sure this is unconstitutional.

[revelarts]

I'm not sure your point. Laws must be Constitutional. I'm not sure this is unconstitutional.
the constitution IS the law. 4th amendment = law.
"...the supreme Law of the Land..." is what the constitution defines itself as.
As Sheriff Andy pointed out in the video pretty clearly.
the Gov't doesn't have the authority to willy nilly record people not suspected of a crime, and use it against them.

And it's not a right GRANTED them by the constitution or by lower laws.
For instance you don't have to create a new law that it's wrong for police to randomly walk into any home just because the door is unlocked.

[revelarts]

love the NY Mayor's quote in the Fusion article Fj


“..Today, we are rolling out cutting edge technology to make the city safer, to make our neighborhoods safer, to keep our officers safer,...”

...currently programed for urban pacification, but that is only the beginning... i'm sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzlt7IbTp6M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9l9wxGFl4k)

[fj1200]

the constitution IS the law. 4th amendment = law.
"...the supreme Law of the Land..." is what the constitution defines itself as.
As Sheriff Andy pointed out in the video pretty clearly.
the Gov't doesn't have the authority to willy nilly record people not suspected of a crime, and use it against them.

And it's not a right GRANTED them by the constitution or by lower laws.
For instance you don't have to create a new law that it's wrong for police to randomly walk into any home just because the door is unlocked.

Let's take a look at 4A shall we?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

I don't see anything protecting the populace against the ramifications of folks talking on a public street. What if the microphones only picked up gunshots; Do you have the same concerns? What about cameras mounted in public spaces and monitored by police; Do you have the same concerns?


love the NY Mayor's quote in the Fusion article Fj

“..Today, we are rolling out cutting edge technology to make the city safer, to make our neighborhoods safer, to keep our officers safer,...”

...currently programed for urban pacification, but that is only the beginning... i'm sure.

You may have misunderstood something. I didn't say it was a good idea, I suggested it wasn't unconstitutional.