×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

211 comments

Oh wow. (5, Interesting)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#40350763)

And that is actually legal?

Re:Oh wow. (5, Funny)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | about 2 years ago | (#40350819)

Doesn't matter. My conversation would be about pictures you see in 4chan and poop. I bet you if enough people do that, they will stop recording...

Re:Oh wow. (4, Funny)

baegucb (18706) | about 2 years ago | (#40351265)

Just hack, re-purpose, and sprinkle stuff like these around: http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/8c52/ [thinkgeek.com]

Can I get a percentage of sales?

Re:Oh wow. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#40351283)

You don't need to do that. Airports have thousands of wetware annoy-o-trons running around all of the time.

I really don't think this is much of an issue. 24 hours of listening in on the generally inane conversation of the traveling public should drive anyone working on the project completely insane. A human being can stand only so much Kim Kardishan and Jersey Shore before it becomes unhinged.

Re:Oh wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351361)

My conversation would be about pictures you see in 4chan and poop

Ah, but you frequent that den of subversiveness that is 4chan (which, incidentally, is now (probably) on the IWF lists in the UK, as all traffic to-fro boards.4chan is being intercepted/monitored in the UK)..
so, your conversations, no matter how scatological, are of interest citizen.
.

Re:Oh wow. (5, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 2 years ago | (#40350893)

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org], ratified by all western countries, states:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

I don't know if you have a Court of Human Rights in Northern America, but that's the final instance that should grant you your human right for privacy.

Re:Oh wow. (1, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | about 2 years ago | (#40350927)

Signing the UN UDHR is a feel-good measure. It has no legal force in the United States.

Re:Oh wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351523)

What does the United States have to do with Canadian airports?

Re:Oh wow. (1, Troll)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40351715)

International laws and treaties are binding even above the US constitution. This is a case of the government applying laws abritrarily when it's convenient.

Re:Oh wow. (2)

CRCulver (715279) | about 2 years ago | (#40351813)

International laws and treaties are binding even above the US constitution.

Only if ratified by Congress as law. The US signing of the UDHR was, as I said, a merely feel-good measure. It was not meant to be legally binding.

Re:Oh wow. (3, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | about 2 years ago | (#40350949)

Aren't we talking about public airports here? My understanding is there is no expectation of privacy in public places, and personally I don't understand why there should be. If you say something in front of other people you should expect it to be heard by other people.

Re:Oh wow. (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 2 years ago | (#40350995)

The Canada Border Services Agency is a government agency. If it implements a law or rule that takes away your human rights, the law does not stand up to protecting you against interference or attacks on your privacy.

So you sue them until you reach the highest court where you win. IANAL :)

Re:Oh wow. (2)

EzInKy (115248) | about 2 years ago | (#40351039)

So in Canada it is a human right that nobody can listen to what you say in public?

Re:Oh wow. (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40351051)

There's a difference between simply overhearing what someone says and remotely placing bugs to listen and record conversations.

Re:Oh wow. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351029)

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Please read the entry again, then come back.

I wake up every day at 6 am and I go to the park. There's absolutely nobody there at that time, except for me and my wife. If I talk to my wife while I'm there, do you seriously expect me to assume that "somebody could have listened to us"?

This is like walking around with a stranger listening closely to everything you say, even if you say it in a very low voice.

I'm afraid I can't accept that.

Re:Oh wow. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351377)

>> somebody could have listened to us

Squirrels are clearly plotting the overthrow of humankind. Please be more careful with your conversations.

Re:Oh wow. (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#40351423)

I wake up every day at 6 am and I go to the park. There's absolutely nobody there at that time, except for me and my wife. If I talk to my wife while I'm there, do you seriously expect me to assume that "somebody could have listened to us"?

As "good" people, we tend to see the world as "us," the good people vs "them," the bad people
Cops see the world exactly the same way, except YOU are not included in the group called "us"

Stop thinking of yourself as a good law abiding citizen and pretend you're a member of organized crime.
That should help recalibrate your expectation of privacy.

Re:Oh wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351457)

It does not matter what you can or can't accept. If you're in a park, you're in public, and thus are free game for recording, and can not (unless you're retarded), assume that you are in complete privacy.

Re:Oh wow. (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#40351817)

I believe that it's less about expecting you to assume that you *WON'T* have any privacy in public than it is about expecting you to *NOT* make the assumption that you would have any privacy in public in the first place.

Nor should you assume that those two notions are equivalent. There is actually a huge difference, and understanding that difference can give you the tools to be confident about the privacy that you do have.

Re:Oh wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351065)

Agreed but the details probably matter. If you're speaking at a normal volume where others can hear then no expectation of privacy would be assumed but if you're whispering to your companion or talking off in a corner by yourself and the only way someone could overhear was with surveillance gear then it become a gray area. You are in a public place but you clearly expect that conversation to be private.

Re:Oh wow. (2)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 years ago | (#40351107)

My understanding is there is no expectation of privacy in public places, and personally I don't understand why there should be.

It depends what you mean by privacy.

Is there an expectation that if you're talking with a raised voice in a crowded mall, the guy standing two metres away from you might see you or hear your conversation, though you might catch him staring? Sure.

Is there an expectation that any time you leave the privacy of your own home, you can be subject to systemic remote surveillance by unseen agents of a commercial or government body with vastly superior resources, the resulting data to be recorded in perpetuity in a searchable database, corollated with any other data from any other database for purposes unspecified, processed using unknown technology to draw unknown additional inferences, and then potentially used against you because after all this automation threw up a false positive you looked a bit like a criminal/tax evader/terrorist/child abuser/political opponent before any human was even involved and without any identifiable individual actually being responsible? No, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation at all.

A lot of the problem with these creepy measures is that their defenders appeal to older standards for when privacy applies ("no expectation of privacy in public", "nothing to fear, nothing to hide", and so on) without considering the implications of newer technology for what constitutes privacy in the first place (when any little detail can contribute to a bigger but possibly incomplete or inaccurate picture that will be used by automated systems to drive decisions by disproportionately powerful organisations that very much can damage you if they make a mistake, protecting the little details becomes a much more important privacy concern).

Re:Oh wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351319)

If we want to make the arguement that it is perfectly legal to record members of law enforcement doing their duty because there is no expectation of privacy "in the public square", then we have to be grown ups and accept the same for ourselves...

Re:Oh wow. (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40351907)

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Richelieu

Don't complain when it's your turn to be dragged off.

Mod this Fucking bullshit down to oblivion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350961)

The UDHR has legal power or enforcement anywhere, it is a piece of paper. You are fucking idiot and tool for citing this as a legal basis.

Re:Mod this Fucking bullshit down to oblivion (0)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40351783)

No, you are the idiot. Because at the end of the day it's all pieces of paper and politics - REAL politics - comes from the barrel of a gun. That is, once you give up on paper.

Re:Oh wow. (1)

kbdd (823155) | about 2 years ago | (#40351001)

These types of agreements do not matter. When you step into an airport, shopping mall, or any kind of place that most of us would think as public, you waive those rights.

These rights only apply in the middle of nowhere, where they are safe to practice.

Re:Oh wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351169)

Hahaha... Human Rights... heh... you are funny...

Re:Oh wow. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#40351195)

The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is not a treaty. The U.S. has ratified only one of the two treaties that together implement the UDHR. The one they ratified was ratified with legally binding reservations that state that the U.S. accepts no legal obligations from the treaty. Which means that in effect, not all western countries have ratified the UDHR.
However, since this story takes place in Canada, which has ratified the two treaties which between them implement the UDHR, it is relevant to this article.

Re:Oh wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351415)

You should say "North America" if you mean the US and Canada. There is no such phrase as Northern America

Re:Oh wow. (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40351707)

Did the US actually sign the human rights declarations or is it another one of those examples where they get everyone else to comply but then just ignore it?

Re:Oh wow. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#40350915)

Why wouldn't be? its not really a public place. Tho they should put up signs to this effect so you agree to the restriction when you enter.

Re:Oh wow. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 years ago | (#40351145)

If organisations providing essential services to the general public can impose arbitrary conditions before you can use their services, you don't have any useful legal protection from abuse at all. That is why most first world countries have some form of statutory regulation in many key industries, such as power supply, transportation networks, communications infrastructure, etc.

FIRST things FIRST (3, Interesting)

w.hamra1987 (1193987) | about 2 years ago | (#40350767)

is canada the FIRST country to do so? i doubt it, but what IS a FIRST is publicly admitting they're going to be recording people in the airport.

Re:FIRST things FIRST (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 2 years ago | (#40350789)

Who gives a shit who was first? It's a bunch of wasted effort.

Terrorists are going to do shit that authorities are not going to be able to combat with tools like these. The terrorists know there are checkpoints and their limitations. They know their conversation may be overheard so they don't talk. They know that they could walk into a mall or megachurch and do the same damage they did with an airplane.

We're wasting our fucking time and money chasing ghosts which will bite us in the ass regardless of the freedoms we continue to happily and passively give up.

Re:FIRST things FIRST (4, Insightful)

w.hamra1987 (1193987) | about 2 years ago | (#40350801)

i highly doubt any terrorist is going to be reviewing his plan in the airport, even in a hushed voice... if he does, then he's one of those too stupid to be of any danger.

Re:FIRST things FIRST (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351031)

Well, even if for some bizarre reason that a duo of terrorists decided to discuss their plans in the airport while carrying them out, there's a 0% chance the CBSA will have someone on staff to understand Arabic or Arabic dialects to decipher what words they used for, "Let's blow this place up!"
 
Mind you, the thought behind this, according to the article, is to prevent criminals from smuggling narcotics. Fortunately drug mules have a habit of speaking to themselves and openly thinking out loud concerning the drugs they're carrying, so this plan will work out well.

Re:FIRST things FIRST (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351101)

Well, even if for some bizarre reason that a duo of terrorists decided to discuss their plans in the airport while carrying them out,

Terrist1: Oh look, the lights are pretty in Quebec in the spring
Terrist2: and yet, Toronto is not so gay.
Terrist1: Ummm, Calgary, not so macho then, I take it?
Terrist2: Yes, and Sault Ste Marie has the best 7up.
Terrist1: 7up?, Sault Ste Marie, oh man, time to get the maple syrup..

good luck decoding that then...

Re:FIRST things FIRST (1)

tqk (413719) | about 2 years ago | (#40351077)

i highly doubt any terrorist is going to be reviewing his plan in the airport, even in a hushed voice...

Or, he's hoping to lure more LE closer into the blast radius of the bomb he's about to detonate.

Re:FIRST things FIRST (4, Interesting)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 years ago | (#40350861)

FTFA:

the union representing about 45 CBSA employees at the airport is concerned personal workplace conversations and remarks could be captured and become part of employees' official record...A 2008 RCMP report said at least 58 crime groups were believed active at major airports, typically by corrupting airport employees or placing criminal associates in airport jobs to move narcotics and other contraband to and from planes.

Sounds like the employees are more scared than the terrorists.

Re:FIRST things FIRST (5, Insightful)

reboot246 (623534) | about 2 years ago | (#40350897)

The real terrorists are the ones who record your private conversations in airports.

Re:FIRST things FIRST (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351033)

True.

Re:FIRST things FIRST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351045)

You mad?

Re:FIRST things FIRST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351183)

oh, great, now we're gonna get molested and harassed going to the mall.. and don't forget about the 'no shopping' list (hmm... wonder who you have to bribe to get a spouse or kid on that list.....).

and.. while i don't give a shit about the churches.. but blow enough of those up and the religious nut-cases and republican crackpots will fuck everything up for everyone (well... even more than they already do).

Re:FIRST things FIRST (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351267)

They know that they could walk into a mall or megachurch and do the same damage they did with an airplane

And yet, of the major international terrorist plots (both successful and unsuccessful) that have come to light since 9/11, I think the majority have targeted aircraft -- specifically aircraft, not the security queues! -- and those that did not (such as the bombings in Madrid and London) have frequently chosen to use similar tactics against other forms of public transport.

Basically, it appears you are smarter than most terrorists. You may know they could cause terror much more effectively than by blowing up an airplane. But they don't seem to have noticed yet.

Re:FIRST things FIRST (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40351799)

You mean, the major plots that consisted of government agencies trying to convince people to become terrorists and providing them with training and access to explosives, etc? Or do you consider the underwear bomber to be a "major" plot?

Re:FIRST things FIRST (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351381)

It is wasted effort.
And work opportunity! For translators. Imagine airport with people talking in many obscure languages.
Let's create jobs for translators from south-east Asia dialect. or Balkan dialects. or ... African dialects.
If you speak less known language feel free to say f-word and something about wasting taxpayer's money.

For sure on every shift there will be somebody with Lihuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Slovenian, Georgian :-)

Re:FIRST things FIRST (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350825)

I have always assumed i am being listened to in an airport.

Public space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350771)

Who cares, anyways, if you are talking in such a place, it will be overheard by many people
If you say something significant, people will also remember it
Does it matter if the govt records what you do in public areas?

Re:Public space (-1, Flamebait)

Froeschle (943753) | about 2 years ago | (#40350785)

Does it matter if the govt records what you do in public areas?

Only if you have something to hide

Re:Public space (1)

swalve (1980968) | about 2 years ago | (#40350841)

If you have something to hide, DON'T DO IT IN PUBLIC.

Re:Public space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351073)

Bullshit. It doesn't matter if I have "something to hide". If I'm standing 20 or 30 feet away from anyone else, I have a reasonable expectation that I can speak to someone next to me without being overheard. No pissant has a "right" to install a listening device to eavesdrops on me. If I wanted someone or something way across the room or down the hall to hear me, I'd either go over there or shout or whatever.

What if someone had a microphone that would listen to you through your house walls? And they could just sit in the street and passively listen to your dinner conversation? Would that be alright?

Re:Public space (1)

I_am_Jack (1116205) | about 2 years ago | (#40350935)

But it begs the question as to why it would be necessary for the government to record your conversations, anyway. Wiretapping isn't legal for the government. Why should this?

Re:Public space (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about 2 years ago | (#40350977)

Rational people do not disclose PRIVATE things in PUBLIC places.

Uh... (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#40351027)

Rational people do not disclose PRIVATE things in PUBLIC places.

Well, my private things are in pubic places, and rarely exhibited in public places (other than public toilets)....

Re:Public space (1)

I_am_Jack (1116205) | about 2 years ago | (#40351087)

Yes, and if you leave food out, that's how you get ants, and this is why we can't have nice things. Rational people discuss private things in public all the time. Rational people don't plot terrorist acts in public (or anywhere else). And since you have a greater chance of winning the lottery than being injured or killed in a terrorist act, IMHO the incremental removal of personal liberties for acts which are statistically less than likely than you being killed in a plane crash (oh irony of ironies) is not rational.

Re:Public space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350817)

It gives the govt more power and the people less. Some are concerned by an overpowerful govt.

Re:Public space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350839)

You have no power over someone reporting you to the police based on something they overheard.

Re:Public space (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#40350937)

There's a huge difference between maybe having a conversation reported and systematic recording of many conversations. Just like there's a difference between a cop happening to see your face in the street and full blown constant CCTV surveillance.

Re:Public space (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about 2 years ago | (#40350993)

To be clear, the power being discussed here is recording sounds in public places is it not? What is stopping any or all of the people from doing the same?

Ridiculous (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350799)

This is ridiculous, I use to do risk assessments and anti-terrorism work in the aviation sector protecting airport assets and I see no practical reason for listening in on conversations. If a threat is already within the area-of-interest then you've this doesn't help with detection because the main threats we are meant to look for these days aren't the sort of people who are going to go blabbing on their cellphone about what they're about to do within the AOI. This technology does nothing about reducing attack surface area or reducing the impact of a successful attack. However, if we shift focus away from anti-terrorism this technology becomes slightly more useful in monitoring crime within airports, which believe it or not, happens more often then you think. Either way, it's still unethical and I know that this would be illegal in the jurisdiction I worked in at least.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350811)

It's always ethical when the government does it. - Afterall it's the law!

Re:Ridiculous (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350863)

Original poster here, there's more truth to that then you think but more along the lines of "It's always fact when the government says it is". That's the reason I stopping working in that sector. I'd be calculating risk for various threats and all of a sudden I get a document from the relevant LE entity stating that the expected annual occurrence of a terrorist attack is once a year.... with background explanation being some political diatribe about Muslim extremists in an age of globalisation blah blah blah. Well I'm sorry, but I base my risk assessments on actual facts or reasonable metrics and statistics not some airy-fairy stereotypes who refuse to show you how they arrive at their numbers and conclusions because showing them to your risk assessment team would "threaten national security", what? We're here trying to follow your bloody legal compliance regulations and protect your assets. If you can't trust us you can't trust anyone!
It truly is security theatre when were forced to alter risk in assessment based on nothing but a two paragraphs saying that terrorism is scary.

AH GOOD TO KNOW MY NAVAHO IS STILL USEFUL !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350829)

Break the wind !!

This is news? (3, Insightful)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | about 2 years ago | (#40350843)

I'd suspect that anyone who traveled through a post-911 NORAD-airspace airport who hadn't already assumed that their conversations might be monitored and / or recorded is either:

A) Naive, or
B) a fool (and also A.)

If you're standing inside a modern-day airport in North America, consider that you may have had more liberty hanging out in a Stalinist Gulag. The airport is just a cage slightly more gilded.

Hermit on the Mountain (2)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 years ago | (#40350879)

Reading stories like this makes me extra glad I'm sequestered away on my mountains surrounded by 300 Ninja guard pigs. Besides, I'm not saying anything that matters. :)

Re:Hermit on the Mountain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351011)

Reading stories like this makes me extra glad I'm sequestered away on my mountains surrounded by 300 Ninja guard pigs. Besides, I'm not saying anything that matters. :)

Your stronghold has weaknesses, you know. If they ever start shooting avian missiles out of a slingshot at you, you've had it.

No reasonable expectation of privacy (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 2 years ago | (#40350923)

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place anyway. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US case law is already being made that establishes that recording in public places is not an invasion of privacy. This includes photography, videography and audio.

It applies not only to the public but to government agencies as well.

Re:No reasonable expectation of privacy (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350979)

Those rulings are foolish and need changing. If I can see a camera pointed at me or a microphone in my general vicinity and it's a public place, fine. Hidden and secretive monitoring should not be permitted by the government, and police should be absolutely prohibited from interfering with citizens recording them. The penalties should be just as disproportionate to the offense as our stupid drug, sex, and "intellectual property" laws, complete with mandatory minimum sentencing, registering on a list when you get out of jail, and a prohibition on being within 1000 yards of protesters and others exercising their free speech rights. Oh, and it should be a felony for a cop to fail to report another cop seen doing these things.

"but...but that will prevent cops from ever working in their profession again". Welcome to the world a lot of IT folks find themselves in. Even worse for those who like to smoke plants or maybe need to pee by the side of the road on a long trip.

Re:No reasonable expectation of privacy (1)

Mattwolf7 (633112) | about 2 years ago | (#40351153)

IANAL, but you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. You give up certain expectations, but audio recordings in the U.S. are very different than video recordings. Oral communications falls into a different category (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511). My understanding is that reasonable expectation of privacy regarding oral communications is basically that if it is unaided (no technology or device to enhance) then it is fair game, but when you need to use something to increase your ability to hear the communication it crosses that line. Basically I can whisper to someone or have a conversation that is expected to be private, just because I am in public I don't lose that expectation of privacy.

Re:No reasonable expectation of privacy (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#40351911)

In Canada there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. It is a 'public space' and in turn, public areas don't have the same level of privacy as private areas. There is however reasonable expectation of privacy in private, and on your private property. Meaning that if you're walking naked in your house, and you leave the drapes/blinds open. It's the other persons fault for staring through the window.

Remember .. Don't discuss how much swag you bought (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40350929)

This is what Canadian security folks are interested in so that they can Tax you on it.

It happens in England (1)

Lips (26363) | about 2 years ago | (#40350999)

While travelling in England in 2010, my wife and I were told by a security person at an international airport in London, that they monitor conversations of people in queues. I can't remember how/why the topic came up, but we were both not surprised that it happens.

Re:It happens in England (0)

kbdd (823155) | about 2 years ago | (#40351059)

I fully expect England to have pioneered the practice. They seem to be at the forefront of elimination of privacy.

Secure open air communicator (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351013)

I just want to publish here to block all patent efforts, "Method and apparatus for secure audio communications in open air". If you don't mind looking like a fool, you can have secure audio conversation with your travel buddy and no one will be able to overhear or record your conversation. If they confiscate one or both of your devices, no one will be able to decrypt any of your previous conversation audio after about 15 seconds, even if it was recorded. Think "OTR for speech audio".

Abstract: This device, when used in pairs, will allow secure audio exchange in an open air environment. Users will speak into a cup that is held over their mouth and nose. The device will establish a secure link with another device located in the vicinity and once the link is established, everyone but the authenticated parties will only hear white noise emanating from the devices. Only the wearers will hear each other through standard headphones or earphones attached to the device.

Detail: The primary purpose of the device is to allow secure audio conversation with no chance of intercept or decryption by unauthorized parties. The primary component of the apparatus will be a circular cup designed to cover the wearer's mouth and seal perimeter of the wearer's mouth. The device will be secured to the wearer's face by way of two straps that connect behind the wearer's head. The portion of the main device that covers the wearer's mouth will allow for sufficient airflow for breathing, but the overall design of the cup will prevent all sound generated at the wearer's mouth from departing the cup. The outside of the device will feature open air audio interfaces (i.e. two disc-shaped speakers and a small microphone in the center). The device will feature a commonly used 3/32" "headphone jack" port for listening where the wearer will attach standard headphones or earphones.

In order to achieve secure audio communications over open air, two of devices must be within a distance that can be covered by audio being broadcast at a volume used in typical conversation in public. When the two users wish to establish a secure link with each other, each wearer will press a button located on the side of the cup marked "Auth". A secure key exchange or "handshake" algorithm will cause the two devices to securely identify themselves to the other user. Each wearer will then look for a label printed on the other user's device showing the digital fingerprint of the device. They will compare the digital fingerprint shown on a small screen on their own device to the one shown on the other user's device and press the "Auth" button again on their own device to indicate that the other user is authenticated.

Once the wearers have authenticated each other, they will then attach their respective devices to their faces by holding the cup over their nose and mouth before securing the straps behind their head, securing the cup in place. As each wearer speaks into the cup secured over their mouth and nose, the sound of their speech will be encrypted using a key that can only be decrypted by the other user's device. To people not using the device or not authenticated by a user, the sounds of the ongoing conversation will only be white noise. Each authenticated user will only hear the other speaker's voice in their earphones or headphones.

In order to avoid detection and unauthorized decryption, the device will periodically transmit the white noise audio even if the user isn't speaking. Also, paired devices will change their encryption key at regular intervals (i.e. every 15 seconds). The encryption algorithm will also feature "perfect forward encryption" as the keys used during the conversation will change frequently, rendering all previous exchanges of data unreadable even if either device used during the conversation were to be compromised.

See "Off the Record Messaging" for an approach to secure handshake and perfect forward encryption.

This/that 7 the other thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351081)

Al Queda, blow-up, fake passport, blow-up FBI/NSA/CIA... Obama is NOT actually a Muslim. I hate republicans (well not all, some). There, is that enough to get me arrested?

"The NHL is fixed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351083)

Speaking French should be outlawed. Jim Carrey no good. Neil Young no good..."

Hah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351093)

I am going to speak in French to foil them listening in, take that snoops! :p

Boring assignment (0)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#40351111)

I think after listening to people discuss hockey for a few hours I'd feel like blowing my brains out.

Cue Google apologists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351119)

WTF?!

People broadcast their signal (voice) out into an open channel (the air) without encryption in a public area, and they dare to expect any privacy?!

Any person with 2 brain cells would have either encrypted their conversations (speaking in code words) or whispered directly to the ears of their partners.

Don't everybody knows that signals broadcasted unencrypted is open to be listened and/or recorded by whomever out there? /sarcasm

Re:Cue Google apologists (1)

cvtan (752695) | about 2 years ago | (#40351181)

My gaming handle is 3BrainCells and you are one brain cell away from copyright infringement! I hope nobody heard that...

More than airports already recorded (2)

joneil (677771) | about 2 years ago | (#40351191)

I found out some time ago that all conversations at my local bank (and therefore all banks, eh?) are recorded when you are banking at/with a human teller. The public is not made aware of this, but I can confirm it. My understanding is due to bank robberies, this system along with video recording was put into place, but how much more can it be used or is it used for?

        This makes me wonder then if the same thing is not happening at all other "public" spot where you interact with a human being behind a desk. For example, we know that all 911 calls are recorded, and all calls to "customer service" of large corporations are recorded "to ensure quality" (yeah, right). So why not every information desk in a mall or a hotel, every cash register at every major department store, and more?

        Another thing I noticed is if you look real close at video cameras in some retail stores, gas stations and restaurants you will see that the camera is not always pointed at the customer, but at the cash register. I first noticed this after a story about "inside" or employee theft at a local fast food restaurant made the newspaper, and the new cameras at the time were pointed at the cash station. I imagine in all these cases, there must be audio in addition to video recording.

          I think the only reasonable assumption, if there is such a thing, is to treat every public encounter you have - be it ordering coffee, paying a utility bill or paying for gas, to be recorded when you are dealing with a human face to face. Don't worry if you pay all your bills online, I am sure your IP address is locked and loaded into some database somewhere too every time you pay a bill too. I guess 1984 really did come and go quite some time ago. :(

   

Makes a lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351235)

You see, this is the perfect method for catching terrorists! Proof: Take a look at the following typical airport situations:

Conversation 1

A: Got more of those peanuts?
B: Sure, help yourself. They were expensive enough.
A: Did you see those magazines. I'd love to buy one, but they are just way too overprized. I don't wanna spend all my money on fucking overprized stuff. I'd rather spend it in Berlin.
B: Yeah, it sucks. And we still have to kill four hours.

Conversation 2

A: Have you got more plastic explosives?
B: No, you said you'd fetch it from the van.
A: It does not matter my friend, because Allah is with us. With Allah's help we will kill many infidels today even if we don't have enough plastic explosives.
B: Why do we have to wait longer? My Kalashnikov is ready and I'm ready. I want to kill infidels!
A: Patience, patience my brother. We still have to wait until the first bomb explodes. Then your time is come to become a martyr.

Clearly, conversation 2 is just by two foreign exchange students pranking around and making jokes. No terrorist would have this kind of conversation on a public airport. Conversation 1, however, satisfies all criteria for an immediate SWAT takedown. Obviously, the term 'peanuts' refers to the bullets in an AK-74 magazine. Also, the two subjects complain about the airport prizing, the clear sign of coming from a communist or socialist "people's revolution" state like Iran. Finally, "killing hours" is disguised speech for "killing infidels" -- it's time for immediate action!

Audio recordings of third parties are illegal CAN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351243)

Audio recordings of third parties are illegal in Canada. One person participating in the conversation must give consent. This includes security cameras which must not have audio because they would never be guaranteed to always have someone consenting in every conversation..

A great history lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351511)

When I was a kid, I always wondered what it was like for the average person going about their lives in Nazi Germany.

Looks like those who are currently toddlers won't have to wonder much.

I think i'm okay with this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40351805)

I think I would much prefer this to the x-ray or groping options. As long as I'm in a public place. Although it seems like they'd have to spend a lot of money on hiring translators for every foreign language since those are the people that they are most interested in.

I should also mention that most of the time I'm flying alone so my conversations are limited to cell phones which they are already recording. Or they could listen to my video game music.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...