mugita_sokiovt@discuss.online
on 12 Aug 06:20
nextcollapse
You don’t consent by not using one of those devices, period. On top of that, this should be a massive violation of multiple laws everywhere. Of course, corpos will corpo, and bypass laws at their pleasure.
Your consent doesn’t matter (legally) in a single-party consent state. Which includes some bigs like New York and Texas. California is a two-party consent state though, so theoretically these people should be informing each other that they are using recording equipment.
mugita_sokiovt@discuss.online
on 12 Aug 17:18
collapse
I don’t think you see what I’m getting at yet. What I said was that not buying one of those devices, among others, is the way you don’t consent to your 4th Amendment rights being violated. Now, if a device like that is usable with a de-Googled solution, as long as it’s hardened right, then at the very least, it shows you don’t consent to the corporate spying. Government spying though… good luck with that.
And I’m saying that in many states your lack of consent doesn’t matter (legally speaking). Your consent is not required if someone else decides to record with their device.
I don’t like it. Just stating that you declining to consent does nothing if someone else records you and gives the recordings to the police. That’s not a search of you or your possessions, that’s a search of someone else’s recording that did not require your consent to be made.
None of this is new, just increasingly insidious and ubiquitous.
threaded - newest
You don’t consent by not using one of those devices, period. On top of that, this should be a massive violation of multiple laws everywhere. Of course, corpos will corpo, and bypass laws at their pleasure.
Your consent doesn’t matter (legally) in a single-party consent state. Which includes some bigs like New York and Texas. California is a two-party consent state though, so theoretically these people should be informing each other that they are using recording equipment.
I don’t think you see what I’m getting at yet. What I said was that not buying one of those devices, among others, is the way you don’t consent to your 4th Amendment rights being violated. Now, if a device like that is usable with a de-Googled solution, as long as it’s hardened right, then at the very least, it shows you don’t consent to the corporate spying. Government spying though… good luck with that.
And I’m saying that in many states your lack of consent doesn’t matter (legally speaking). Your consent is not required if someone else decides to record with their device.
I don’t like it. Just stating that you declining to consent does nothing if someone else records you and gives the recordings to the police. That’s not a search of you or your possessions, that’s a search of someone else’s recording that did not require your consent to be made.
None of this is new, just increasingly insidious and ubiquitous.
.
BRB. Building a wearable that sends out an ultrasonic screech to blow out nearby microphones.
Going to call it “Blow Me.”
Edit: looks like they already exist: newscientist.com/…/2328652-voice-jammer-stops-any…
archive.ph/unmYO
Also, paper with more detail: arxiv.org/pdf/1904.08490v1
Is there a DIY build somewhere for something like this? From my quick googling I’ve only seen expensive off the shelf products
github.com/mcore1976/antispy-jammer
and also
github.com/buildidealis/audio-jammer
Awesome, thanks for sharing!