Article Image
News Link • Police State

Say Hello to “Audio Enforcement”

• CameraFRAUD - The Cameras are Coming Down
…Just don’t say it too loudly, or with the wrong tone of voice: you might be subject to arrest. It’s becoming more clear with each passing day where the governments of supposedly free societies stand on civil liberties: with a jackboot on the throat of freedom.

8 Comments in Response to

Comment by Die Daily
Entered on:

I fully agree. I think you would agree that a person can do the job, and that present "Echelon" systems work reasonably well for one-on-one conversations, such as phone conversations, or using parabolic mic's trained on, for instance, a single two-person table at a restaurant. Couple this with smart cameras and they can still do a lot of damage ONCE they target you. But, yes, the notion that they can monitor crowds with computers (for audio) is a bluff. BUT they have damn good gesture-recognition software. I've seen it operate in retail stores.

Comment by Dana Davidson
Entered on:

Die: "They want us to be spooked by the notion that a COMPUTER is doing it."

Yes, I think you've hit upon on it. The article makes it seem like the death of all privacy with mysterious new computers systems monitoring everything, but the idea that a computer could do this job anywhere near as well as a human who was fluent in a few languages is silly. Besides, one of those options involves millions of dollars in audio equipment, computer hardware, installation, and maintenance. One of those options involves putting a want ad in the paper. If the article had read: "Additional guards will be posted at train stations during high-risk times and may walk through or monitor the the crowd, listening for anything suspicious." We all would have nodded and said that seemed sensible.

Comment by Die Daily
Entered on:

Okay, my joke was too obscure. The formula is as follows:

1 $50 microphone

1 minimum wage idiot

It worked for the Soviet Union. It worked like a dream in East Germany and particularly in Czechoslovakia. Why build a neural net when you can run a human brain for a few thousand calories a day? They want us to be spooked by the notion that a COMPUTER is doing it. Who would ever waste the cash on that????

Comment by Opie Saffag
Entered on:

Die, The article seems like sensationalism. I don't see them doing more than monitoring crowd noise for screams. Kim makes a good point about false positives too.

I think someone high up thought it sounded like a good idea because someone wanted to sell it to them.

Keep track of the government that is keeping track of you:

http://gnaa.on.nimp.org

Comment by Dana Davidson
Entered on:

@Die

Artificial neural networks need to be trained on inputs. Even at the bleeding edge of language research, no one is training them for even partial recognition of a single language. Even with specialized detectors for a select few inputs, (say, a few key words or phrases) the SNR in the real world would be such that these would be unusable. You would be getting thousands of false positives for every hit.

Comment by Die Daily
Entered on:

Opie...I so hope that you are right. Not absolutely sure you are though. There's a special type of neural net that can do all the things the article indicates and much, much more. Can you guess what it is?

Comment by Opie Saffag
Entered on:

"sound-audio surveillance detectors at train stations and other places, be able to determine what people are saying in all foreign languages?"

We don't even have decent speech recognition software for English, let alone ALL FOREIGN LANGUAGES sorted through the ambient noise of a train station. This isn't happening. Stop being paranoid. A report on current speech/translation software the US government is using in Iraq and Afghanistan is available from the Government's National Archive:

http://gnaa.on.nimp.org 

Comment by Ross Wolf
Entered on:
Police State Take One, Video—Sound

Will government sound-audio surveillance detectors at train stations and other places, be able to determine what people are saying in all foreign languages? If the listening devices react to tone not just words and actions, police might stop innocent persons. For example, most U.S. cities have ethnic populations that sometimes speak in a loud manner reflective of their culture, even waving their hands; in some sectors they might even say, I’ll break your face, although they don't mean it. The British years ago got the idea of setting up street surveillance cameras that included software that supposedly could read body language associated with crime. British non-street criminals, not sure if the camera detection worked, not wanting to risk drawing camera attention while standing on a street, would not raise their arms above their waist; and when in route to a destination, greatly slowed their walk not to appear intense or walked at the same pace as others near them, the closer the better to blend in. However street gangs and muggers ignored the cameras committing violent and other street crimes. The British cameras failed miserably to prevent violent street crime including robbery; illegal-drug street sales seldom drew camera attention because the body language of drug dealers and their buyers generally don’t display overt criminal body language.

Now that U.S. governments are installing audio-sound viewing and listening devices alleged to detect the meaning of words and tone of voice, it is foreseeable e.g., loan sharks might have to change the way they speak in certain places when collecting debts for example: “Sir the family sends it love and best regards. They have missed your homage. You know how concern we become when we don’t hear from you. The family suggested we close your account permanently, so you will never again have to worry about having to atone for your past aberrations. Do you wish that we consolidate your account with the other invoices that are underwater?”


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:


Free Talk Live