So is the objection to ubiquitous microphones, the closed software that controls them, the fact that they might be turned on without peoples' knowledge, or the fact that the police can use them to listen to what's nearby...? 

And, how does that description differ from a "smart"phone?


On 13-10-15-Tue 2:43 PM, Shawn Lesniak wrote:
On 2013-10-13 22:49, wrote:
Lastly, shot-spotters shouldn't be controversial, even among those of us
who support the personal rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  A
gunshot on a city street means one of two things: a criminal has just
shot a victim, or a criminal's would-be victim has just shot their
attacker in self-defense.  Either of those things merits getting the
police and paramedics on the scene, pronto. 
Shotspotters are microphones.  They can capture other sounds and it is
not clear how many other sounds and how long those sounds are retained.
 Their use would be less controversial if they were an oracle that just
spit out 4 .40 caliber rounds were fired at the intersection of Grand
and Broadway at 23:12:32 (15 seconds ago) instead of capturing any audio
at all.

sudo-discuss mailing list