| ▲ | emptybits an hour ago | |||||||||||||
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 42 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. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||