Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SilasX 1365 days ago
I agree that the costs far outweigh the benefits here, but there’s clearly a legitimate use. If you’ll remember the Bernie Goetz case, there was a lot of debate about out, and legal significance to, what the kids said before Goetz started shooting.

I agree that the occasional significance of some conversations does not justify the constant widespread surveillance, but it’s a bit much to say that this couldn’t possibly be useful.
1 comments
Beldin 1365 days ago
I don't remember that case at all. Possibly because I'm not American.

Could you elaborate what would be a valid reason? From what you wrote, it sounds like someone started shooting after some kids said some things. I can see that as an argument for gun legislation, but not for installing microphones in public spaces.

link
SilasX 1365 days ago
It would be the same issue if he simply assaulted them with his fists -- the recording would help to determine if he was being threatened.

You can look up the case on Wikipedia and elsewhere if you're curious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...

Bottom line, it's really not hard to imagine that audio recording would help determine important facts of a case; this shouldn't be controversial in and of itself. The issue is the relative cost to personal liberty.

link