Canada Has Hidden Microphones In Airports Recording Conversations
from the why-that's-not-creepy-at-all dept
Some recent news out of Canada involves reports that the airport in Ottawa has hidden microphones installed, designed to record conversations of people. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) doesn't seem to see anything wrong with this, admitting that it's spent $500,000 upgrading video equipment to also include audio capturing. And, while the CBSA says that:“It is important to note that even though audio technology is installed, no audio is recorded at this time. It will become functional at a later date..."...it's also worth pointing out that the group admits similar equipment is already functional elsewhere.
What about your privacy rights? Well, clearly you read the fine print on the website of the airport you were using, right? That's where the details are going to be posted. There will be signs in the airport... telling you to check the website, because you just know people are going to rush to do that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: airports, canada, cbsa, ottawa, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What're those?
...You mean those things the government doesn't give a rats ass about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's an airport.
To put it another way: This does not change my basic understanding of the world that airports are bad places to go when you want to talk about how much you hate the government and wish everyone would just die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's an airport.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's an airport.
Did you know the full-body scanners are now also seen at some football stadiums in America?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Speak in code! (If they're weren't already!)
They're going to be holding phone calls with each other or speaking in person and NOT saying "The bombs are planted, and the timer is set to go".
They'll be saying "I posted that present for your daughter, Mitch. Should be delivered within a couple of hours".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's an airport.
If someone want's to listen to me and my Mrs bitching in an airport about why we are here in this overstated bus station and both getting very pissed off about everything from the plastic courtesy to the overpriced "duty free" shite. If they want to record that I hope they have a very large hard drives or very sophisticated compression techniques because, given Mrs Arioch's capability with the spoken word, they are already on a loser. I hold my hand on my heart to the one that is prepared to sift through a recording of so much of {Mrs Arioch} in an airport
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's an airport.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's an airport.
Good for you, others can't. Now go fuck yourself, you aggressive asshole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's an airport.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That way if Johnny Terror pops into a airport bathroom stall for some privacy while he's preparing something, the airport SWAT team can be notified to swoop in their and grab him before he gets on a plane.
I mean, it would almost be silly NOT to have them in there!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frankfurt Airport Anecdote
That is a piece of the ceiling of awaiting area at a gate in Frankfurt airport (Germany). And the thing in the middle is what looks like an ordinary microphone sticking out of it.
I was thinking: WTF?! Now I know. They were just a bit less concealing than the Canadians. :))
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I bet the British government would call that an act of terrorism, if such a term was in vogue at the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Did You Know...
In the firmware setup of each camera I had to explicitly turn the audio recording off because it was on be default. I'll bet that the $500,000 spent "upgrading video equipment to also include audio capturing" was just a bunch of external microphones.
As a Canadian myself, I'm glad that our Privacy Commissioner put the brakes on this practice but I don't think it will last long.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
things haven't changed. humans are still the aggressive, violent, paranoid, bickering tribal monkeys they've always been. whether its some modern day terrorist using airplanes or guy fawkes trying to bomb the tower of london; techniques and locations are obviously different, but the motivations and drives are exactly the same. And the First Amendment is more important than ever in this day and age of corporate and media steamrolling of individual opinion.
"a sailing vessel being hijacked and turned into a missile targeting a skyscraper?" really? who let this guy in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apathy, mate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now they are trying to spy on people in airports, spy on citizen's digital communications but you know... they're very worried about privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*shrug*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There are no, and should not be any, privacy rights in a public space. If you don't want your conversation to be heard, don't speak. Anyone within earshot can hear you.
On the other hand, this is a problem because it may eventually record what you say. That, specifically, is the problem here. If I just happen to be standing within earshot and *hear* what you say, that is one thing, and really chances are I'll forget or ignore what you said because I really don't care. If I record what you say, then I am eavesdropping on the conversation and usually this isn't done for good reasons. In this case, the recording can go on to be used out-of-context to prosecute someone, for saying something in public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here's a thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It will probably turn out to be a plot by some Canadian performance rights organization to collect money
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENOwpL5oqeE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bdzOdPTZ34
SOMEONE HAS TO PAY!!!
Now if they could only put the mics in hospitals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14oUpAmsS20
Too bad we can't go back to the way we dealt with this kind of stuff in the good old days:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CizzE-zZo
That would be uncivilized and unprofitable, but oh so hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not news
Finding out that they do it at the customs line in an airport as well isn't exactly a surprise. I'd have been more surprised if they didn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We Need Privacy From the Government
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's that you say, one countries patriots are another countries terrorists?????? So how do we tell who the good guys are and who the bad guys are if the only difference is which side of the 'border' they are on?
Obviously if they are not on OUR side of the border, they are terrorists and can be shot on site or detained without recourse for the rest of their lives in a military prision.
What do you mean other countries will start doing the same thing to our soldiers? Our soldiers are PATRIOTS I tell you, not TERRORISTS, I don't care what those other countries say....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Technically true, but this gets muddy really fast. First, with the proper equipment "within earshot" may mean "within thousands of feet".
But, more importantly, saying that you can't expect any form of privacy at all in public spaces is tantamount to saying that you don't get any privacy at all. Don't want anyone to know where you go? No problem, just don't go anywhere. Don't want anyone to hear what you say? No problem, just don't say anything. Don't want your purchase patterns to be tracked? No problem, just don't buy anything.
Which means that if privacy is important to you, the only solution currently is to stop leaving your house or engaging in social interactions.
That can't be right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is not a single aspect about 9/11 that was actually new and unprecedented. It gave us no problems that we've not seen and dealt with before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's an airport.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I'm pretty sure that 170 years later, the Parliamentarians and Royals were calling a different bunch of people 'terrorists' :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Many states have rules against "augmented hearing" for this purpose. I agree that this is a slippery slope.
But, more importantly, saying that you can't expect any form of privacy at all in public spaces is tantamount to saying that you don't get any privacy at all. Don't want anyone to know where you go? No problem, just don't go anywhere. Don't want anyone to hear what you say? No problem, just don't say anything. Don't want your purchase patterns to be tracked? No problem, just don't buy anything.
I agree. I don't like it myself, although this is currently happening now, you are being spied on often in route to work, and you probably don't know it. However, the inverse to this is that the law says "mind your own business" and makes even hearing discussions you are not apart of illegal, meaning you have to wear special earmuffs wherever you go. There has to be a happy medium between the two.
Which means that if privacy is important to you, the only solution currently is to stop leaving your house or engaging in social interactions.
People give away privacy all the time, just for free stuff or even reduced costs in stuff. I try not to, but then again, I am here giving away my privacy talking on this public forum. Life involves risks, and part of those risks are leaving the house and engaging in social interactions.
The problem isn't being spied upon (though I do have a problem with government and big business using personalized data to build profiles on me.) I, like everyone else other than bob, like Google, yet they spy on me all the time. It is just one of the risks of our society. I like discounts on food, so my preferred rewards cards sit in my pocket and get used whenever I go to the supermarket, even though they spy on me.
The problem is being spied upon, and then, having that data that is collected used out-of-context to prosecute you for a crime you didn't commit, but for which they have a confession from you for having committed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ltlw0lf's "happy medium"
Require that any audio/video collection be done by a device in plain view, such that a reasonable person, having casually looked around, above, and below him/her, would be aware that the device was present and functional. This precludes long range microphones and hidden listening devices, but still allows an obvious security camera.
Optionally, say that a device worn is exempt if it is worn by a person whom a reasonable person should have detected. For example, an audio recorder on a police officer's belt is fine, if you reasonably should have known the officer was present, regardless of whether you knew the officer had recording equipment.
Optionally, say that creating a recording outside of compliance with this specification is not an offense, but that such recording be considered an "improper search" and thus not usable by the government, nor permitted to be retained/searched by the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wireless cameras
WiFi 5 Mega pixel microcamera with sensitive microphone. For your smart A/V recordings through the net.
The WiFi module IP-NET is part of the innovative market of micro IP cameras that use Internet to transmit images of environments or people in real time.
This formidable audio video monitoring device uses a tiny camera with a 5 Mega pixel CMOS sensor with 90° view angle pinhole lens and brightness balancing, and built-in microphone. Furthermore it has a supplied antenna for wireless connection and a micro SD card for data storage.
User friendly and easily configurable, the module IP-NET no requires special operations for installation. It’s enough to have an Internet connection and the application interface client will follow you step by step for settings of remote connection. It’s possible to customize and install the device in everyday objects such as wall clocks or generally small appliances.
http://www.endoacustica.com/ip-network-multifunctional-micro-camera.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]