This is a very interesting article. I have never heard anything like this before. To be honest, I have no problem with it. I have issues on how it is being implemented but not the program as a whole. I have a problem with inmates not knowing they are being put into a database with voice recognition. I do not have a problem though with them being in that database. When they commit crimes, they are forfeiting their rights, so I have no problem with it. I do not have a problem with inmates losing their phone privileges though. I do not have a problem with this because it should be a requirement for all inmates to do and if they refuse, they have to be punished until they cooperate with the rules that are being put in place. I think that people on the outside though should not be in the database. I believe this because it is family that is calling or friends. I believe that it is okay for the calls to be monitored to make sure nothing in the phone call is bad or illegal, but only the inmate's voice should be put into a database to be used over time. This I feel is a violation of the people that have not done anything wrong, so they do not deserve to have their rights taken away. They are already having rights taken away by people monitoring the calls they are having with people that are on the inside of prisons and jails. I think that having inmates forced to put their voices in a database is not a bad thing and I am surprised it has not happened sooner because this type of technology I feel like has been around for a long time. It might help prevent crimes from happening, who knows. -Legion001
I agree with your statement about the data collection being wrong when inmates are being punished for not agreeing to cooperate when they have no idea what is going on. While inmates have to forfeit quite a few of their rights by being locked I think it is wrong to potentially rid them of any other rights. The new uses of technology across the board is fantastic for preventing some crimes but I do believe there needs to a limit to how far they can reach into a free citizens privacy rights to implement them into the same database the inmates are in. -Blues001
This article does a very good job using evidence and first hand knowledge of what the voice data mining really is. I do not see a problem with this process but I do have a little bit of apprehension toward how prisons are accomplishing it. The article states that some inmates have no idea what google is and that really goes to show how much technology keeps changing every year. For a prison to collect voices of inmates who have no knowledge of what they are doing is wrong in my mind. Also to threaten phone privileges if they do not answer the questions through the phone for the data collection seems wrong because outside contact with a family is sometimes enough to keep a prisoner sane while being locked up. I think it is great that we are adapting to the new technology and implementing it to keep people safe but I do believe some privacy should be present as well. I understand the concept of our military using this to protect us and other countries but using this even on outsiders beyond the prison just does not sit well with me. Family members who are just trying to reach a loved one from prison should not have to unknowingly give up their right to privacy just to contact a loved one. Other than family members I can understand using this to track outside gang contact and drug affiliations which can lead to a crackdown on more individuals getting locked up for committing crimes. Overall I do think that this use of technology is great but only in moderation. Inmates have already lost so much in their lives and threatening to lose phone privileges over something they have no idea what it is just seems wrong. -Blues001
I agree with your statement on the fact that this technology is good for our military. I also think that it is also good in moderation like you said when used in prisons. I also agree that the whole the inmates not knowing is not a good thing and could be an invasion of privacy. I think that prisoners should have to do it but should know what they are getting themselves into regarding their privacy. I also agree that free citizens that are just trying to contact their loved ones should not be put into these databases because they are free citizens. -Legion001
I agree with you that it is unfair to the prisoners to not even know what they are doing especially that they don't even know what Google is. Corrections needs to make an effort on keeping these prisoners up to date on what is going on. I understand that there is a lot to do in the corrections system, but they need to at least make an effort for the prisoners so they know what Google is. -lilbaby001
I agree that this technology is great in the military. I think that we should keep working to improve our military technology because it can really save a lot of lives and a lot of time. I think that they should also use this technology in prison. When you go to prison you give up a lot of your rights. If they want you to give them a fingerprint or to even step back into their cell they have to do it. I see this as no different. All that this does is better protect the community by better equipping the prison and the police, so I don’t think it’s an invasion. Celtics002
To be honest, this whole thing sounds a bit sketchy. Getting forced to submit your voice without knowing the purpose of it doesn’t sound quite right. Not to mention that if an inmate didn’t comply, they lost all phone privileges. An inmate’s most convenient (and sometimes only) way of communication to family is via phone. Inmates already have very little freedom in prison (which I’m fine with as it is punishment) so they want to hold onto whatever they have. I think that the prison went the wrong way about doing this, even though it had good intentions behind it. What a lot of people forget is that prisoners are people too. They should be given an honest choice of whether they want to submit their voice to a surveillance system. However, I think that this choice should only apply to the less serious offenders. Rapists, murderers and blatantly malevolent people should be somewhat forced to submit to a voice surveillance scan due to their status. sexy_in_bikini 001
This article really opened my eyes about what really happens in the corrections systems. No one ever really realized what happens behind closed doors, but I think since I read this article more stuff will open up about what really happens. The article states that it is “taking the prisoners’ rights away”, but a lot of prisoner’s rights are already taken away when they enter the system, so what is one more? I will say that it is taking the rights away of the person receiving the call because they don’t have the consent of the outside caller for them to record their voice. It is demoralizing that these prisoners have to give up majority of their rights, but then again I could see the other side of it as to where they did the crime themselves and they have to face their consequences. John Dukes, one of the prisoners who had to participate in the voice prints says, “Here’s another part of myself that I had to give away again in this prison system.” Like I said, they have to give up a lot of themselves just because of the crime they committed and I understand that. The people on the other end of the call though, shouldn’t have to give up any rights. If I was in that situation, I would be outraged by people recording my voice without consent. They could at least have them sign a waiver agreeing to them recording their voice print. Garcia, a man incarcerated at a prison that had to participate in the voice calling, ends this article with a very interesting quote that I thought would make Americans think deep. He says, “First you use this on the people marginalized in society, criminalizing the families of those incarcerated, but especially in Trump’s America, the sky is the limit with this.” I think this is funny because he basically saying that anything can happen with the president we have today. -lilbaby001
This article talks about the advances that there has been in the voice recording technology within prisons. What prisons are doing is giving the inmates the option to read phrases into the phone for their database, or to lose their phone privileges. There is some debate over this strategy and if it’s okay for them to do. Some people think it’s an invasion of privacy but I don’t see it that way. One prisoner interviewed said that he was skeptical about it and didn’t really know if he should do it or not. He decided to do it because even though he only had a few months left he didn’t want to lose his phone privileges so he could talk to his family. So the prison has a legitimate way to get these prisoners to do these tests. I see this as an opportunity to develop an entire database of voices, specifically the people who have served time in prison. This can be used in several different ways, and can potentially be a way for police to identify someone without even seeing or approaching them at all. For example, cops are doing an undercover mission and the cop inside has a mic on. When the police in the car are listening to the conversation, they could run the voices through the database and potentially identify some of the individuals. This could be extremely helpful for when police listen to phone conversations because they could identify the voice instead of the number. I could see this becoming a major role in police investigations and detective work. Later in the article they talk about using this for terrorist calls. I wonder how this would work in court, and if the police could use these recording as a legal way to identify the individuals. Celtics002
I agree that it isn't fair for prisoners to have to choose between phone rights or voice rights. I think it isn't even more fair when people are being held in jail without even being proven guilty. This is especially unfair. The point you brought up about undercover cops with mics was excellent. I hadn't even thought about that. No consent is required with that. I feel as if having a database of voice would not be to reliable though. It has to be extremely accurate for the most use. Jackrabbit001
This article was very interesting. I had no idea that a system like this even existed. While I do not agree with it completely I can see where it could be useful in certain situations. I can see it being used to find out any gang affiliation between prisoners. I do not think it would be fair to anybody outside of the prison. Just because you have someone you care about in prison why should you give up your rights? I also do not agree that they do this under the table where you do not know about it and if you do not do it you lose phone time. Phone time alone is such a huge deal to prisoners because it's one of their only lifelines to the outside world. How is that fair? If they are going to use this system they must be transparent about it. I think there should be some reward if you sign up for it. A punishment isn't fair. Give up your voice rights or lose phone time? This reminds me to the Facebook conspiracies where they were taking our information and selling it to advertisement companies. I find it interesting that the federal government can do this without consent but Facebook must go to a criminal court. I suppose it has to do with being a prisoner you automatically give up many of your rights so you might as well throw your voice in their as well. Jackrabbit001
I forgot about the whole problem with Facebook and ad revenues, that's a good point. At point does the Federal government start infringing too far on people's rights? I hope that people can agree that maybe the current system is not the way because everyone should be able to agree that talking to your loved ones, regardless of where you are is so important In our day-to-day lives. Rock001
After reading this article. I found myself surprisingly split on the topic. I tried to look at it in the most objective way possible and see the real problem. At first I didn't see a lot wrong with using voice recognition systems because after all, if the advantage is there, why would you not use it? It seemed like we should use everything we have to keep our communities safe. I figured that prisoners, in theory, are already used to having someone else run much of their life, telling them when to sleep, eat, etc. With that in mind I didn't see a huge problem with having their voices recorded, recognized and all that. However, it wasn't until I read more and the point of prisoner access and information came across. I completely forgot about, and was blown away by the fact that some, or many prisoners have been locked away for so long that they don't even know what google is or the internet as a whole, but how could they have? It seems crazy to us now because we rely on the internet so much today. If you have this technology you're using on these prisoners who don't even really know what it is or how it works, is that fair? I feel like if this principle is to be applied everywhere in correctional facilities, then it needs to be taught to the people who are going to be effected the most. Hopefully, the man in this article, John Duke, agrees and is trying to help spread the word on people who have little to no access to these online luxuries we have. Rock001
This article starts off by telling how John Dukes had met with a corrections counselor and she had told him to say some phrases on a piece of paper that was given to him. He was given the choice to say these phrases on the phone or lose his phone access. This seemed like a very strange request. He was never told why he was asked to make that decision. Until a few months later it turned out that his audio was being used in a new voice surveillance system. Authorities have been acquiring technology to "extract and digitize" the voices of inmates into voice prints. This way they can identify the voices in the calls and to look for calls with the same voices of interest. Along with that they can also analyze the voices of the people receiving the call outside of the prisons. This type of system seems like an invasion of privacy in my opinion, although there may be a use for a system like this in certain situations. In some prisons, inmates are taking part in the voice recognition system without them knowing about it. It is not right that the inmates are being a part of a system and they are not told that they are. Not only is this type of technology used on prisoners, but they can be used on anyone even if they are not convicted of a crime. This type of system should not be used on the public, especially if they are completely unaware of it. In Texas, if an inmate wants to make a call they have to participate in the voice recognition system. An inmate should not have to participate in the system if they don't want to. Even though they are in prison, they still have the right to say no. And they still have a right to make calls to their families. -Ram001
This is a very interesting article. I have never heard anything like this before. To be honest, I have no problem with it. I have issues on how it is being implemented but not the program as a whole. I have a problem with inmates not knowing they are being put into a database with voice recognition. I do not have a problem though with them being in that database. When they commit crimes, they are forfeiting their rights, so I have no problem with it. I do not have a problem with inmates losing their phone privileges though. I do not have a problem with this because it should be a requirement for all inmates to do and if they refuse, they have to be punished until they cooperate with the rules that are being put in place. I think that people on the outside though should not be in the database. I believe this because it is family that is calling or friends. I believe that it is okay for the calls to be monitored to make sure nothing in the phone call is bad or illegal, but only the inmate's voice should be put into a database to be used over time. This I feel is a violation of the people that have not done anything wrong, so they do not deserve to have their rights taken away. They are already having rights taken away by people monitoring the calls they are having with people that are on the inside of prisons and jails. I think that having inmates forced to put their voices in a database is not a bad thing and I am surprised it has not happened sooner because this type of technology I feel like has been around for a long time. It might help prevent crimes from happening, who knows. -Legion001
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about the data collection being wrong when inmates are being punished for not agreeing to cooperate when they have no idea what is going on. While inmates have to forfeit quite a few of their rights by being locked I think it is wrong to potentially rid them of any other rights. The new uses of technology across the board is fantastic for preventing some crimes but I do believe there needs to a limit to how far they can reach into a free citizens privacy rights to implement them into the same database the inmates are in. -Blues001
DeleteThis article does a very good job using evidence and first hand knowledge of what the voice data mining really is. I do not see a problem with this process but I do have a little bit of apprehension toward how prisons are accomplishing it. The article states that some inmates have no idea what google is and that really goes to show how much technology keeps changing every year. For a prison to collect voices of inmates who have no knowledge of what they are doing is wrong in my mind. Also to threaten phone privileges if they do not answer the questions through the phone for the data collection seems wrong because outside contact with a family is sometimes enough to keep a prisoner sane while being locked up. I think it is great that we are adapting to the new technology and implementing it to keep people safe but I do believe some privacy should be present as well. I understand the concept of our military using this to protect us and other countries but using this even on outsiders beyond the prison just does not sit well with me. Family members who are just trying to reach a loved one from prison should not have to unknowingly give up their right to privacy just to contact a loved one. Other than family members I can understand using this to track outside gang contact and drug affiliations which can lead to a crackdown on more individuals getting locked up for committing crimes. Overall I do think that this use of technology is great but only in moderation. Inmates have already lost so much in their lives and threatening to lose phone privileges over something they have no idea what it is just seems wrong. -Blues001
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement on the fact that this technology is good for our military. I also think that it is also good in moderation like you said when used in prisons. I also agree that the whole the inmates not knowing is not a good thing and could be an invasion of privacy. I think that prisoners should have to do it but should know what they are getting themselves into regarding their privacy. I also agree that free citizens that are just trying to contact their loved ones should not be put into these databases because they are free citizens. -Legion001
DeleteI agree with you that it is unfair to the prisoners to not even know what they are doing especially that they don't even know what Google is. Corrections needs to make an effort on keeping these prisoners up to date on what is going on. I understand that there is a lot to do in the corrections system, but they need to at least make an effort for the prisoners so they know what Google is. -lilbaby001
DeleteI agree that this technology is great in the military. I think that we should keep working to improve our military technology because it can really save a lot of lives and a lot of time. I think that they should also use this technology in prison. When you go to prison you give up a lot of your rights. If they want you to give them a fingerprint or to even step back into their cell they have to do it. I see this as no different. All that this does is better protect the community by better equipping the prison and the police, so I don’t think it’s an invasion. Celtics002
DeleteTo be honest, this whole thing sounds a bit sketchy. Getting forced to submit your voice without knowing the purpose of it doesn’t sound quite right. Not to mention that if an inmate didn’t comply, they lost all phone privileges. An inmate’s most convenient (and sometimes only) way of communication to family is via phone. Inmates already have very little freedom in prison (which I’m fine with as it is punishment) so they want to hold onto whatever they have. I think that the prison went the wrong way about doing this, even though it had good intentions behind it. What a lot of people forget is that prisoners are people too. They should be given an honest choice of whether they want to submit their voice to a surveillance system. However, I think that this choice should only apply to the less serious offenders. Rapists, murderers and blatantly malevolent people should be somewhat forced to submit to a voice surveillance scan due to their status. sexy_in_bikini 001
ReplyDeleteThis article really opened my eyes about what really happens in the corrections systems. No one ever really realized what happens behind closed doors, but I think since I read this article more stuff will open up about what really happens. The article states that it is “taking the prisoners’ rights away”, but a lot of prisoner’s rights are already taken away when they enter the system, so what is one more? I will say that it is taking the rights away of the person receiving the call because they don’t have the consent of the outside caller for them to record their voice. It is demoralizing that these prisoners have to give up majority of their rights, but then again I could see the other side of it as to where they did the crime themselves and they have to face their consequences. John Dukes, one of the prisoners who had to participate in the voice prints says, “Here’s another part of myself that I had to give away again in this prison system.” Like I said, they have to give up a lot of themselves just because of the crime they committed and I understand that. The people on the other end of the call though, shouldn’t have to give up any rights. If I was in that situation, I would be outraged by people recording my voice without consent. They could at least have them sign a waiver agreeing to them recording their voice print. Garcia, a man incarcerated at a prison that had to participate in the voice calling, ends this article with a very interesting quote that I thought would make Americans think deep. He says, “First you use this on the people marginalized in society, criminalizing the families of those incarcerated, but especially in Trump’s America, the sky is the limit with this.” I think this is funny because he basically saying that anything can happen with the president we have today. -lilbaby001
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the advances that there has been in the voice recording technology within prisons. What prisons are doing is giving the inmates the option to read phrases into the phone for their database, or to lose their phone privileges. There is some debate over this strategy and if it’s okay for them to do. Some people think it’s an invasion of privacy but I don’t see it that way. One prisoner interviewed said that he was skeptical about it and didn’t really know if he should do it or not. He decided to do it because even though he only had a few months left he didn’t want to lose his phone privileges so he could talk to his family. So the prison has a legitimate way to get these prisoners to do these tests. I see this as an opportunity to develop an entire database of voices, specifically the people who have served time in prison. This can be used in several different ways, and can potentially be a way for police to identify someone without even seeing or approaching them at all. For example, cops are doing an undercover mission and the cop inside has a mic on. When the police in the car are listening to the conversation, they could run the voices through the database and potentially identify some of the individuals. This could be extremely helpful for when police listen to phone conversations because they could identify the voice instead of the number. I could see this becoming a major role in police investigations and detective work. Later in the article they talk about using this for terrorist calls. I wonder how this would work in court, and if the police could use these recording as a legal way to identify the individuals. Celtics002
ReplyDeleteI agree that it isn't fair for prisoners to have to choose between phone rights or voice rights. I think it isn't even more fair when people are being held in jail without even being proven guilty. This is especially unfair. The point you brought up about undercover cops with mics was excellent. I hadn't even thought about that. No consent is required with that. I feel as if having a database of voice would not be to reliable though. It has to be extremely accurate for the most use. Jackrabbit001
DeleteThis article was very interesting. I had no idea that a system like this even existed. While I do not agree with it completely I can see where it could be useful in certain situations. I can see it being used to find out any gang affiliation between prisoners. I do not think it would be fair to anybody outside of the prison. Just because you have someone you care about in prison why should you give up your rights? I also do not agree that they do this under the table where you do not know about it and if you do not do it you lose phone time. Phone time alone is such a huge deal to prisoners because it's one of their only lifelines to the outside world. How is that fair? If they are going to use this system they must be transparent about it. I think there should be some reward if you sign up for it. A punishment isn't fair. Give up your voice rights or lose phone time? This reminds me to the Facebook conspiracies where they were taking our information and selling it to advertisement companies. I find it interesting that the federal government can do this without consent but Facebook must go to a criminal court. I suppose it has to do with being a prisoner you automatically give up many of your rights so you might as well throw your voice in their as well. Jackrabbit001
ReplyDeleteI forgot about the whole problem with Facebook and ad revenues, that's a good point. At point does the Federal government start infringing too far on people's rights? I hope that people can agree that maybe the current system is not the way because everyone should be able to agree that talking to your loved ones, regardless of where you are is so important In our day-to-day lives. Rock001
DeleteAfter reading this article. I found myself surprisingly split on the topic. I tried to look at it in the most objective way possible and see the real problem. At first I didn't see a lot wrong with using voice recognition systems because after all, if the advantage is there, why would you not use it? It seemed like we should use everything we have to keep our communities safe. I figured that prisoners, in theory, are already used to having someone else run much of their life, telling them when to sleep, eat, etc. With that in mind I didn't see a huge problem with having their voices recorded, recognized and all that. However, it wasn't until I read more and the point of prisoner access and information came across. I completely forgot about, and was blown away by the fact that some, or many prisoners have been locked away for so long that they don't even know what google is or the internet as a whole, but how could they have? It seems crazy to us now because we rely on the internet so much today. If you have this technology you're using on these prisoners who don't even really know what it is or how it works, is that fair? I feel like if this principle is to be applied everywhere in correctional facilities, then it needs to be taught to the people who are going to be effected the most. Hopefully, the man in this article, John Duke, agrees and is trying to help spread the word on people who have little to no access to these online luxuries we have. Rock001
ReplyDeleteThis article starts off by telling how John Dukes had met with a corrections counselor and she had told him to say some phrases on a piece of paper that was given to him. He was given the choice to say these phrases on the phone or lose his phone access. This seemed like a very strange request. He was never told why he was asked to make that decision. Until a few months later it turned out that his audio was being used in a new voice surveillance system. Authorities have been acquiring technology to "extract and digitize" the voices of inmates into voice prints. This way they can identify the voices in the calls and to look for calls with the same voices of interest. Along with that they can also analyze the voices of the people receiving the call outside of the prisons. This type of system seems like an invasion of privacy in my opinion, although there may be a use for a system like this in certain situations. In some prisons, inmates are taking part in the voice recognition system without them knowing about it. It is not right that the inmates are being a part of a system and they are not told that they are. Not only is this type of technology used on prisoners, but they can be used on anyone even if they are not convicted of a crime. This type of system should not be used on the public, especially if they are completely unaware of it. In Texas, if an inmate wants to make a call they have to participate in the voice recognition system. An inmate should not have to participate in the system if they don't want to. Even though they are in prison, they still have the right to say no. And they still have a right to make calls to their families.
ReplyDelete-Ram001