you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 4 months ago (11 children)

"acoustic lip reading"? Reading lips by sound waves wouldn't they just put a microphone in there?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Theres probably sone regulation against actually just recording the conversation...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Most states require two party consent to record audio otherwise it's wiretapping.

    Acoustic ultrasonic distance mapping isn't counted as wiretapping. They aren't recording your speech, they're inferring your speech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    It’s actually the other way around. There are only 11 two-party consent states. All the rest, plus DC are single-party consent, but usually the single consenting party has to be one of the participants of the conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Most states require two party consent to record audio otherwise it's wiretapping.

    That was before multi-billions dollars companies found a way to monetize this. Then they'll intensively lobby pay lawmakers to amend the laws so that either cars get a waiver or starting up the car will be considered as a consent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    Wait, so regular "lip reading" is looking at someone's lips to determine what they're saying.

    Add "acoustic" and it involves sound. So... sound-based lip reading? Isn't that just recording something with a microphone with the "lip reading" part being unnecessary?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments