Maryland Public Buses Record Passengers' Conversations (washingtonpost.com) 137
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.
FOIA (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:FOIA (Score:5, Insightful)
What this is, is nothing short of Bureaucratic tyranny.
When I speak of tyranny, of an all powerful government, it doesn't always mean having a tyrant like Hitler hell bent on evil at the top. It is often more insideous than that, unaccounted, unfettered bureaucracy that is beholden to nobody. Because no single person is responsible, there is nobody to prosecute for the decisions that lead the the tyranny.
And while this is going on, people are crying for more tyranny, in the name of "security" ... the state MUST protect itself from its own citizens!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite. He's stating that the people themselves are asking for it. Only it's like the wish the man made with the genie for his family to never be poor again. They were turned into golden statues; they will never feel the misery of poverty again.
However, the problem is what we want the government to do, which is to take care of us and make everything okay. And to do that, the government keeps assuming more responsibilities and demanding more power to do it with. That makes the government lar
Re: (Score:2)
The more weight it carries, the more it must tax, and the harder business becomes, leading to a self-fullfilling prophecy of ever-greater safety nets needed.
Re:FOIA (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should put a sign on it so people can speak clearly into it. I'm sure a lot of people have things to say to them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Strangers on a bus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a case of art imitating life. [wikipedia.org]
Re:You know... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great Idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
Your optimism shocks me... You think people picked up would be let go and the Gov would realize the error of their ways?
In Soviet 'Murka, they'd be charged with committing a terrorist act and some form of copyright infringement for unauthorized public performance of a work. And then tax dollars would be spent on an advertising campaign on the dangers of playing antisocial movies on the bus where your movie could be interpreted as a threat to commit an act of terror.
And the worst part is I only wish I was tinfoil hat, tongue in cheek here. I honestly don't think the above is even much of a stretch any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone here's optimism shocks me: you think anyone is actually listening to these recordings? 99.9% are archived "for future use," they only analyze this stuff if they are trying to pile on additional evidence in a case already in progress - they couldn't run it as a source to initially identify targets... if they did, they'd have far too many arrests of innocents, and eventually one of them would shut them down with a lawsuit.
Could they run a keyword identifier automatic speech recognition algorithm on
Re: (Score:3)
"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".
Or they may subject them to severe questioning, indefinite imprisonment, or extraordinary rendition. http://www.brightknowledge.org... [brightknowledge.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I for one, think that is a shitty idea. Unless you like being in a police station.
Your goal is to attract the attention of the police, to make them less likely to use tactics like this. That could work, but you'd need thousands of people doing it. One or two of you might create a ruckus, but you'll end up in jail in the meantime. I think a petition would probably be just as annoying and ineffective, but without the "being investigated by the cops" part.
Re: (Score:2)
...I think a petition would probably be just as annoying and ineffective, but without the "being investigated by the cops" part.
There's that optimism again, what do you think is the first thing that happens to anyone who annoys the cops, politicians, etc.? Maybe not a full blown multi-departmentally resourced investigation, but the annoyed public servant is going to do a bit more than Google your name after you piss them off.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because you own an automobile.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ever
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you want to make the DRIVER the decisionmaker on what to keep & not keep? The guy being paid ~$35k/yr?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention... you know... driving the bus...
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 prog
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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 [news10.com]. I'm pretty sure the victim there is very happy the bus had video surveillance.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maryland law requires two-party consent to record a conversation. This BS would get yourself jailed if you did it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.)
Above the Law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Silly commoner. Laws are for you, not the rich and powerful.
Re: (Score:1)
I've never thought of municipal transit authorities as being rich or powerful.
like a bad neighbor... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That is where you'd be wrong. Petty tyrants are still tyrants. They wield their power just as much as the ones at the top. They have the full power of the Bureaucracy (Power and the wealth of the taxpayers) behind them, and you'd be a fool to take them on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have to be careful. We still want to keep our rights to film the cops.
Re: (Score:2)
Different thing entirely.
People have inalienable rights (by virtue of being born) and enumerated rights (from the Constitution, though that document also lists some rights considered to be inalienable). The government has no rights and only the powers granted it by the Constitution.
People have a right to privacy and a reasonable expectation for there to be limits on government surveillance, even in public. The government has no such right, and that includes individual agents of the government acting in t
Re: (Score:2)
The government has no rights and only the powers granted it by the Constitution.
People in government control both the gold and the guns. Guess who gets to make the rules?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
Re:Above the Law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
all parties must agree, unless you have a warrant, or special circumstances apply. They don't on a public bus.
Sure they apply -- the "special circumstances" are that public buses are disproportionately filled with poor people. That's likely why this legislation to restrict recording never went beyond committee even though it's been introduced four times in the past. Poor people have fewer lobbyists, so why should legislators care?
The article also addresses precisely why the circumstances have changed -- the recent riots in Baltimore led to a number of specific complaints, apparently including complaints about t
Re: (Score:2)
Given that this is explicitly illegal, and the statute provides for civil suits ( State by state laws [rcfp.org]), it sounds like there could be a rather large payday in the wings for the class of MTA riders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is correct. Maryland is an all party consent state - all parties must agree, unless you have a warrant, or special circumstances apply. They don't on a public bus. http://law.justia.com/codes/ma... [justia.com]
Most likely there's a sign clearly visible at the entry to the bus that says something to the effect of "By boarding this bus, you agree to have your conversations recorded." Then they're covered.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I agree with the practice (I don't) but is it? I was reading this: http://law.justia.com/codes/ma... [justia.com] and one could argue (and I imagine it might be) that the fine print to use the MTA has a statement that by using the service you agree to have your conversations recorded - putting them in compliance with provision c.3.
I don't think that should be a condition to use a government service, especially a monopoly, but unfortunately the law allows all kinds of bullshit to slide in terms and conditions th
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are public employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's not a crime. Maryland law covers the intentional interception of a communication.
First, there has to be intent. The incidental recording of a conversation is not covered by the law. So if two people are recording their conversation in a coffee shop and picked up a private conversation in the background that would not be illegal.
Second, we have to define interception. According to numerous court rulings a communication can only be intercepted if it's private. A conversation in a public place
Lack of periods since takeover (Score:2)
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?
Re:Lack of periods since takeover (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's time for us to finally announce: Slashdot is pregnant. Hence the missed periods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OT:Lack of periods since takeover (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, competing airlines are yet to do that.
Relatively OK with this (Score:1)
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 po
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"no expectation of privacy" and "no expectation of not having your every movement and statement recorded and kept for eternity" are two different things.
Not really. But if you don't want your public goings on to be recorded and stored forever vote. Vote in an informed way, and do it in local elections. Everyone overlooks local elections until something like this comes up, but they're as important if not more important in most people's daily lives than the big splashy national elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Better way:Very UnCivil Disobedience (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Not going to change a thing. (Score:2)
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. .
FEDERAL Laws being broken by this?? (Score:2)
how many times have they recorded BANKING info or other types of privileged data??
Already being done in Albany, NY (Score:2)
What's with the random libertarian non sequitur (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? That's how you decide to slip in your political commentary? Come on...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What's with the random libertarian non sequitur (Score:4, Insightful)
If we had competing mass transit companies, they'd have repeating expenses and edge loss. They need 60 buses and 90 at peak; two companies need 34 buses each and 49 at peak, because the buses aren't always full and they aren't always taking everyone at the stops, so having a few additional means you can compete better.
This is the nature of competition: it raises costs, but improves market conditions. For a government-run service, prices are usually closer to costs, so competition doesn't provide a market control; for a private industry like oil manufacture or steel production, competition means one firm can't overcharge their customers without another firm undercutting them to reap profits from all the new business they're getting. For extremely *large* industries, the edge loss in having multiple firms is minimal; it can even be more efficient to manage them as individual firms, and so a holding company or a bunch of unrelated businesses are both equally as efficient and both more efficient than one giant monopoly.
Mass transit is a government-run service with a minimally-competitive market. It's lossy: a lot of seats are unfilled; you necessarily have to provide transit in a schedule-driven manner; and large buses or trains are more efficient than small buses or trains with the same total seating. In a world where individual transit is common, mass-transit is best as a government service; you don't need to legislate competition away because no business would survive supplying mass-transit in a fair market.
This is incredible. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this bus is public, and what the microphone records can just as easily be heard by the driver and other passengers.
Like security cameras, it is a matter of local laws, no need to bring the constitution and human rights here.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the busses have signs saying you're being recorded? Even then its far too Big Brother for me.
Private public transport? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.).
Record passengers aboard Maryland buses (Score:2)
Record passengers aboard Maryland buses this year! Also, legislative efforts hope to break the record.
Why no, I did not read TFA.
If beggers had horses... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
"legislation is the only recourse" - or not (Score:1)
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.
RTD in Colorado does it too (Score:1)
It's not such a bad thing (Score:1)
Mein Herz blütet für Dich... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
We're in the age of data. Everyone has, finally, come around to understand that and they're acting accordingly. Your faux outrage over the government doing it is just silly.
Re: (Score:1)