A New Wrinkle in the Sound Vs. Visuals Debate?

[Jack Lynt]

Nah. But, new tech allowing researchers to extract(?) sound from video without conventionally recorded audio, yes.

Here I am "sharing" something from Facebook. Sorry. But I thought you video and audiophiles or techies in general might appreciate it.

Nova Next: Eavesdropping Technique Reconstructs Sound from Moving Images Alone.

On a dark note, I hope this doesn't, or won't, include the ability to "recover" conversations, as well. I hope the next generation of surveillance cameras won't be recording our conversations in this way, without actual audio recording apparatus, thereby taking the pervasiveness of surveillance and the end of privacy to new heights, or to new lows, as it were.

 

[sfoster]

On a dark note, I hope this doesn't, or won't, include the ability to "recover" conversations, as well. I hope the next generation of surveillance cameras won't be recording our conversations in this way, without actual audio recording apparatus, thereby taking the pervasiveness of surveillance and the end of privacy to new heights, or to new lows, as it were.

it would also circumvent wiretapping laws

 

[sfoster]

read the article. this reminds me of something I saw long ago.

you can use a laser pointed at someones windows to monitor the vibrations on the glass and reconstruct the speech of people inside of house.

 

[harmonica44]

I thought that it was illegal to record a conversation unless you were part of the conversation. In all the places I have worked, the security cameras had no sound, and I thought that was why, cause it's illegal.

When you watch documentary crime shows, and they show armed robberies in stores and what not, you can hear camera mic sound, but it's so distorted that they have to subtitle what people are saying. But that's not actual sound that was recorded on the scene, was it? I thought they just dubbed that distorted sound overtop afterwards, as a gimmick, to keep the viewer more interested since no one likes watching footage with no sound.

Cause recording actual sound on the scene would be illegal and fall under the same law, wouldn't?

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I don't think there's any legal issues with recording sound in a surveillance camera - you are, essentially, part of the conversation because it's your property that you are surveilling. It's different than a 3rd party recording a conversation between others without their knowledge.

And as sfoster noted - there have been vibration-based surveillance technologies for quite a while now. This is just a variation on those.

 

[harmonica44]

But if the owner of the property was in the back, and two people were talking among themselves or something?

I worked in a grocery store, and none of the cameras had sound, and I think it was because the workers, could not talk to the customers, all the time, and most of the sound would be the customers talking among themselves about their personal lives.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

That's why they put signs up saying the facility is being monitored by video. By entering into the store you are implicitly giving your permission to be recorded. The more likely reason that the cameras didn't record sound is that a tiny mic on a camera up in the corner of the ceiling isn't going to record any particularly useful sound.

 

[ZolaScope]

you can use a laser pointed at someones windows to monitor the vibrations on the glass and reconstruct the speech of people inside of house.

This is why (allegedly) certain three-letter agencies not only have quadruple-glazed windows but have speakers playing music in between the two double-glazed panels.

 

[harmonica44]

That's why they put signs up saying the facility is being monitored by video. By entering into the store you are implicitly giving your permission to be recorded. The more likely reason that the cameras didn't record sound is that a tiny mic on a camera up in the corner of the ceiling isn't going to record any particularly useful sound.

The signs say that it's being monitored by video surveillance, not audio surveillance. I did not know they were allowed to record audio in that sense, but now I do. My bad. Thanks.

 

[sfoster]

The signs say that it's being monitored by video surveillance, not audio surveillance. I did not know they were allowed to record audio in that sense, but now I do. My bad. Thanks.

specifically in maryland there were wiretapping laws that applied to audio.
This is why linda tripp got in trouble with the monica lewenski then

And it's also what they used to press charges against people if they video taped police in public.. they would press charges with a wiretapping law for the audio. But you can finally tape police now in public and it's no longer illegal

 

[Jack Lynt]

it would also circumvent wiretapping laws

Cold comfort these days.

But yeah, I'm sure it's nothing, or the least of such technologies and tactics to be concerned about, if you're one of the (apparent) minority who even feel any concern about such things.

The technology or phenomenon is cool, though.

 

[WalterB]

The signs say that it's being monitored by video surveillance, not audio surveillance. I did not know they were allowed to record audio in that sense, but now I do. My bad. Thanks.

You make an elemental mistake: video may sound like images only, but when you watch a video, audio is often part of it, right?
It doesn't say visual surveillance....

Actually I heard in some place the audio is used to get attention to a camera.
The guard or police officer viewing lots of screens gets a sigh when a sudden, loud sound is detected on a camera, making the chance (s)he missed it smaller.

On the other hand, most CCTV has crappy visuals and if there is sound even crappier sound.