Forget Surveillance Video, How About Surveillance Audio?
from the listen-up dept
Stories about the near ubiquitous coverage of surveillance cameras (especially in urban areas) is nothing new, but what’s video without a little sound as well? Slashdot points out that in London, they’re looking to install surveillance microphones to monitor places that are considered noisy to see if noise ordinances are being broken. Of course, it’s not hard to imagine how random hidden microphones could potentially be misused as well — especially since people won’t realize the microphones are there. So, again, it raises the question concerning an expectation of privacy. If you’re out and about, and think that no one else is around, but a microphone overhears your conversation with a friend, did you have a legitimate expectation of privacy? Or, are we reaching the point where the only place you can expect privacy is in your home? Of course, this idea isn’t completely new. We were wondering if it would reach this point a few years ago when there was talk about an audio gunshot detector.
Comments on “Forget Surveillance Video, How About Surveillance Audio?”
Wiretap
Audio surveillance runs afoul of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, because you’re intercepting oral communications. Silent video does not intercept communications like that, and so we have silent video surveillance.
Re: Wiretap
I guess the Westminster Council hasn’t heard of this “Electronic Communications Privacy Act” thing then.