←back to thread

87 points davidbarker | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.843s | source
1. mplewis ◴[] No.37744525[source]
This is a "destroy on sight" item. I don't want you covertly recording me at any time.
replies(2): >>37744587 #>>37744663 #
2. romwell ◴[] No.37744587[source]
The ship for covert audio recording has sailed many decades ago, around the time Dictaphone trade mark being registered by Alexander Graham Bell.
replies(1): >>37752672 #
3. Etheryte ◴[] No.37744663[source]
I mean, everyone already has a recording device in their pocket at all times that's more than capable of recording what you say if you filter the noise out. This device is just a microphone that's in a less noisy position along with a subscription.
replies(1): >>37746142 #
4. yjftsjthsd-h ◴[] No.37746142[source]
I think a person could reasonably distinguish between "this could record you" and "this, by design, is always recording".
5. JohnFen ◴[] No.37752672[source]
I don't understand these sorts of responses. There's a world of difference between a device that could be abused to spy on people and a device that is designed and intended to do so.

Also, just because there are existing ways to do the Bad Thing doesn't mean we should accept new ways of doing the Bad Thing. Particularly when the existing ways have enough friction that they require someone to intentionally decide to spy, rather than accidentally doing so.