Furthermore, who will be making sure whatever conservation has been overheard is simply not a tv show, radio broadcast, or even the neighbor having an argument in their garden ?
While various governments have been busy assuring us that they’ve always had this possibility, they’re lying. They’ve had the possibility to do surveillance, but never retroactive. The ability to sift through not only what you’re going to say, but also what you’ve said in the past X months before you became a suspect is quite new.
Anything you say can and will be used against you, possibly in a court of law...
And that the FBI and police have actually used them (with warrants) to get criminal convictions. Publicly available court transcripts confirm this.
That's the legal use. Who knows how the NSA has actually been using those in situ capabilities.
The only thing I could find about this was a claim that it was a hoax: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/camera-obscura
Assumptions, maybe no. But i think people need to be better educated on when those assumptions are false. We put recording devices in our homes and are shocked when those recording devices turn out to be recording.
Ideally, the devices should be legally required to give you strong indicators to when it actually is recording. Be it your phone, speakers, w/e. But still - we've got recording devices all around us. If we don't acknowledge that then privacy is just for show.
I don't see how this point is relevant when the police can bug your house with a warrant.
When data is requested from a device like a smart speaker, suddenly everything that has been said, even before a potential investigation, would be accessible.
Smart speakers transcribe everything they hear, meaning you lose all tone and nuances of speech patterns, creating a very dangerous cocktail when allowing law enforcement to do text searches or even worse, let AI sift through it.
Imagine a speaker that is “always on” while watching black hawk down, or Air Force one, transcribing every line, or worse, a line here or there.
I have the same opinion of wide surveillance as DNA registers. It allows for law enforcement to be lazy, and does not guarantee the right person is convicted. In fact it moves the burden of evidence from the prosecutor to the defendant. Suddenly you have to prove your innocence instead of law enforcement having to prove your guilt.
And you want to invite FBI into your living room?
Are you sure? This isn't the future I signed up for. The justifications for this surveillance tech are so incredibly flimsy