[dealuromanet]

There was no comparison between road noise and wrongspeak. That was a warning. The Cabinet wants boxes that hear things with precision 24/7 and can issue fines. Of course they'll justify it however they can.

It's a warning because the power will be abused. You have 1984 in your username - I recommend re-reading that book if it's been a while since you read it.

[ses1984]

How often are you discussing your political dissension in the middle of the road?

I’m appropriately paranoid about abuse of power in other areas, like for example monitoring personal telecom.

[dealuromanet]

It's not about what I do. Your response is similar to people who respond to privacy advoates with "what do you have to hide" or who brush aside their concerns with "I have nothing to hide."

One thing to consider is the trend of expected speech or compulsory speech. There are people who would want to see if other people are saying what they want them to say, rather than just not saying what they don't want them to say. There are people who weigh someone's words to see how dedicated they are to a cause or to an idea or to a movement.

These technologies empower language police even in cases where someone would otherwise choose to say nothing. And they establish a precedent.

[ses1984]

I’m firmly not in the “I have nothing to hide” camp.

I am firmly in the “pick your battles” camp.my

Worrying about cameras on the road picking up your speech when 99% of the population willingly carries smartphones doesn’t seem like the right place to pick a fight.