Until one of them communicates a threat, then it is a criminal matter.

emptybits an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Perhaps, depending on specific intent, credibility, and the nature of harm threatened.

But since this is about surveillance, I hope that detection of verbal threats is not a goal of government surveillance because it's difficult to imagine how that could be accomplished without significant loss of privacy or other liberties.

▲

saltyoldman 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

I can see it in court now. Our AI monitoring system did indeed know about the threat to the building where 800 people died on Sunday.

It says: " Agent: Voice to text detected: I have everything ready - all the XXX chemicals are ready in the van and I'm going to park in the 900 S Crap St now"

Agent: Thread Level HIGH.

Agent: Looking up local codes.

Agent: Mayor signed SB-1238 in 2026 - no surveillance devices may be used for audio threat determination.

Agent: Threat silenced, but logged.

Judge: Oh, that makes sense. Make sure to bag and tag and bill the families for the bags.

City Employee: We also know who parked the van, should we arrest them.

Judge: No it looks like SB-1238 would forbid us from using this data for the purposes of arrest. I guess send them a thank you letter for testing our laws.

	▲	anigbrowl a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[delayed]
	▲	ryeats 21 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is essentially the Trolley Problem.

▲

stickfigure an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think you're advocating to have our personal conversations continuously monitored whenever outside, but in the context of this thread, that's what it sounds like.