Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Input Devices Security

Life Recorder 347

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the just-around-the-bend dept.
Bruce Schneier writes "In 2006, writing about future threats on privacy, I described a life recorder: A 'life recorder' you can wear on your lapel that constantly records is still a few generations off: 200 gigabytes/year for audio and 700 gigabytes/year for video. It'll be sold as a security device, so that no one can attack you without being recorded."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Life Recorder

Comments Filter:
  • Rogue-like (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Monday April 19, 2010 @09:55AM (#31895306) Homepage Journal

    It'll be sold as a security device, so that no one can attack you without being recorded.

    Except when getting stabbed in the back.

    • Re:Rogue-like (Score:5, Interesting)

      by InsprdInsnty (1793100) on Monday April 19, 2010 @09:55AM (#31895322)
      or wearing a disguise of any sort
      • by Thanshin (1188877)

        Or with a sniper rifle.

        Or poisoned.

        Or run over with a stolen car.

        Or rolled in your bedsheets and defenestrated.

        Or by injecting your significant other with a deadly STD.

        Or releasing anthrax on your ventilation system.

        Or bombing your car.

        hmm What exactly does this protect you against? And, more importantly, does it protect you more than the extra danger of wearing expensive hardware wherever you go and being a potential witness of every crime that ever happens near you?

        • Re:Rogue-like (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Pharmboy (216950) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:30AM (#31895856) Journal

          Is it just me, or do you live in a really, really bad neighborhood? Most people in my town just die of heart attacks, cancer, or car wrecks, with the occassional random act of violence. Not that this device is a good idea (unless you are the one selling them) but most people tend to die in ways that are less worthy of a James Bond movie plot.

          As for being a witness for "every crime that ever happens near you", how many felonious crimes do you personally witness in the average day? I'm not talking copyright infringement, but about muggings, rapes, murder, burglary, robbery, etc. If your answer is > .009, you need to move. Soon.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Thanshin (1188877)

            most people tend to die in ways that are less worthy of a James Bond movie plot.

            Most people don't need permanent recording of their lives to avoid being attacked.

            So either you don't need the device, or you do and it's useless.

            As for being a witness for "every crime that ever happens near you", how many felonious crimes do you personally witness in the average day?

            How many muggings happen near enough that the criminal may think I had recorded his face?
            How many people may think I had recorded their face somewhere they shouldn't be?

            If I stay in the center plaza of my current city, Madrid, with an omnidirectional camera I assure you I'd record several dozens of pickpockets.

            If I crossed that same plaza, alone, with the recordin

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

            Change your thinking from "how many do you see per day" to "how many happen near you that you might have unknowningly recorded".

            If you are in the area, and police are aware of your recording capabilities, they're going to ask you where you were. It might not be a court order, and you can probably refuse to answer, but if they are following every possible lead you're on the radar.

            How would police know about you? Simple, you're going to look odd and they are going to ask questions at least once. Especially

    • Re:Rogue-like (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Monday April 19, 2010 @09:57AM (#31895346)
      I'll just steal your "Life Recorder" after I beat you up. Thanks for understanding.
      • Re:Rogue-like (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tehniobium (1042240) <lukas AT imf DOT au DOT dk> on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:04AM (#31895450)
        Exactly what I thought, but TFA suggests/hints at the possibility of the data not being stored locally.

        So not only do you get to have your life recorded, but your life is stored in the cloud! Fantastic isn't it??
        • by jeffmeden (135043) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:11AM (#31895562) Homepage Journal

          If this is the case then why is storage relevant? It's the bandwidth necessary to get the data out; doing it reliably is necessary too. An attacker could theoretically just jam the frequencies that the recorder/transmitter uses, and then attack you, steal or destroy the device, and no one would be the wiser. As a security measure, this needs to be better thought out.

          On top of that, what does Bruce Schneier need with protections from attack? I hear that behind his beard lives an inordinately large prime number of fists.

          • > If this is the case then why is storage relevant?

            Connectivity can never be guaranteed, so you either need storage or you have the thing discarding all data whenever the wifi connection is bad.

            > An attacker could theoretically just jam the frequencies that the recorder/transmitter uses

            Yes, but no one will ever do that just to attack someone. Unless you're a president of something, in which case you won't be walking around with just a camera around your neck for protection.

            • by Thanshin (1188877)

              > If this is the case then why is storage relevant?

              Connectivity can never be guaranteed, so you either need storage or you have the thing discarding all data whenever the wifi connection is bad.

              And you need a year of storage for that? How long are you planning to stay on that bad wifi tunnel?

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            If this is the case then why is storage relevant?

            Because we need a reasonable technical excuse for these impositions not being deployed upon our beings. Either way I'm not worried because I have AT&T, so my 3G coverage will make my life look like a bad version of the Nixon Whitehouse Tapes.

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by oldspewey (1303305)

            An attacker could theoretically just jam the frequencies that the recorder/transmitter uses, and then attack you

            Which attacker? You mean the scab-ridden meth addict who's waiting over by that mailbox while I finish my ATM withdrawl? Or the drunken neanderthal at the bar who thinks I'm staring at his girlfriend and decides he needs to prove some kind of point?

            ... or did you mean the computer nerd who's going to come up out of his basement and attack me as a way of testing that his latest jamming device actually works?

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              If these actually caught on, you'd be able to buy the $20 life camera jammer from the trunk of a car along with the $100 Hi-Point 9mm. Just because they need to be developed by geeks doesn't mean that, once developed, they can't then be made cheaply, even by morons. And there are plenty of geek criminals, too, it's not that hard to build a jamming device.\

              Drunks and people on meth are notoriously bad at thinking of long term consequences. If a drunk is going to hit you, warning him that he might get arres

              • you obviously have NO idea of the price of a trunk sold 9mm

                Much more.. much much more...

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by DavidTC (10147)

                Yeah, but locking them up will reduce the number of violent stupid people on the streets.

                Almost no security system beyond physical barricades works by protecting you. They work by raising the cost and consequences of committing crime in general.

                And this article is 100% right. At some point, people will start transmitting audio and video of everything they do, hopefully to a server under their control.

                At that point, when the number of people hit a high enough percentage that that criminals actually start

          • by u38cg (607297)
            Hah. He doesn't even secure his Wi-Fi.
        • by blueskies (525815)

          What cloud? You mean like your home computer or a server under your control? If it's on the internet is that considered cloud technology now?

    • by IBBoard (1128019)

      Also, aren't those things only once every few seconds for photos? That'd let you capture people as they pass, but it won't stop someone getting right up to you and suddenly lashing out.

      You're also a little dependent on it not being stolen/broken in the attack. Either that or you've got one hell of a good data plan on a "works everywhere" mobile connection!

    • by blueZ3 (744446)

      Or shot at any range. Hello, McFly--even a 360 degree view from four 640x480 cameras isn't going to help you identify someone 100 meters off. "Yes, officer. He was shot by this little blob in the lower right corner of the image"--and CSI-like enhancements are right out.

      There are various (specious) reasons to purchase something like this, but "avoiding an attack" is just silly. Despite the media's fixation on crime, random attacks are quite rare. Only a really stupid mugger is going to attack some nerd weari

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by geekboy642 (799087)

        You and Bruce both are thinking in a very depressingly straight-forward manner. This isn't for watching 9 hours of typing or to protect you against a theoretical pipe-wielding villain who doesn't know about disguises. You would use these to shore up a fallible memory, or for evidence in a lawsuit, or to save more images of your spouse before s/he passed away. The security implications are amusing, but trite. Ultimately, complete life recording is like the NSA's scheme with the Internet: Record enough garbag

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      It's illegal in Illinois to record anyone without their permission, and nothing recorded without someone's permission can be used in court here.

      I call it the "liar's law". But this tech won't help any Illinois crime victims.

      • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:40AM (#31895998)

        It's illegal in Illinois to record anyone without their permission, and nothing recorded without someone's permission can be used in court here.

        I call it the "liar's law". But this tech won't help any Illinois crime victims.

        There is a good reason for such laws. I used to work for a guy who regularly recorded people (n violation of the law) and then egged them to say things that he thought he could use to fire them (he had two business partners, which limited his ability to fire people on a whim). He would delete where he had said inflammatory and demeaning things first. After the HR person told him that he couldn't use those recordings because they were illegal, he engineered a confrontation with her and fired her (she is now suing for wrongful termination).

    • The estate of the late Julius Caesar called, wants his money back.
    • by rhook (943951)
      The recording doesn't matter if they take the device and destroy it.
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShadowDragoonFTW (1527831) on Monday April 19, 2010 @09:56AM (#31895324)
    I don't like the privacy concerns if something like that was ever stolen or linked into...
    • Um ... what about it being used against someone as evidence that they committed a crime?

      Judge: I'm sorry, Mr Smith, but your "Life Recorder" does not enjoy your 4th or 5th Amendment rights. Take him away boys!
    • by inviolet (797804)

      I don't like the privacy concerns if something like that was ever stolen or linked into...

      Presumably they have two decryption keys: one that you own for use in retrieving stuff for personal use, and another held only by the state that can be obtained only with a court order.

      On balance I'd say this prospect is a Good Thing, because it would make it vastly easier to prove somebody guilty or not-guilty. That, in turn, will pull the rug out from the more offensive aspects of our current justice system -- part

  • Hunny! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheKidWho (705796) on Monday April 19, 2010 @09:56AM (#31895326)

    "Hunny, I demand you have your life recorder on you at ALL times!"

    Please don't try to make this practical.

  • Can't use it in MD (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ColdBoot (89397) on Monday April 19, 2010 @09:57AM (#31895342)

    MD is a 2 party consent state - can't use it here!

    • by Rogerborg (306625)
      Even in public? Photography or journalism must be a risky occupation then.
    • by cenobyte40k (831687) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:08AM (#31895528)
      Sure you can. In MD they use security camera's all the time. In fact I have seen hidden security cameras in MD. The only time consent for taking your picture or recording is necessary is when one or more parties have assumed privacy. IE in there own home, on the phone, etc. Once you are in public is doesn't matter. Consent BTW doesn't have to be in writing either. If the camera is obvious that's good enough.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheNinjaroach (878876)

        Sure you can.

        No, not as far as audio is concerned. You cannot tape conversations in MD - even in public - if you do not have consent of both parties. Police in Baltimore use and abuse this law on a regular basis when they are filmed in public. Fark or Slashdot had a story on this many months ago.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by IanO (21302)

        Having a camera didn't work out so well for this guy in Maryland:

        http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/motorcyclist-arrested-for-recording-cop-brandishing-gun-with-hel/ [autoblog.com]

        He ended up having his computers confiscated as recording the officer is considered a felony.

    • by rhook (943951)
      That law applies to recorded conversations when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Think telephone calls.
  • by kaldari (199727) on Monday April 19, 2010 @09:58AM (#31895358)

    A little pricey, but you can already buy such a thing: http://wearcam.org/domewear/ [wearcam.org]

  • Copyrights? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Thiez (1281866) on Monday April 19, 2010 @09:59AM (#31895362)

    Good luck getting into a cinema wearing one of those.

    • I believe that the law states that you have to mention that you're wearing a recorder before starting ANY conversation.

      Also, confidential meetings and conversations would become more interesting.

      In addition, I would turn the damned thing off a lot - because I like my privacy - and if I'd lose that recorder, it would all be out on the streets.
      And I would probably forget to turn it back on if I'd take my little walk on the streets.

      • State-by-state, friend. No federal law on recording conversations. Since this only records what the wearer may witness, it evades a lot of laws against hidden video cameras.

        Seth
  • The Final Cut (Score:5, Insightful)

    by omnichad (1198475) on Monday April 19, 2010 @09:59AM (#31895364) Homepage

    And they can make a great highlight video of your life to show at your funeral. Whether you were a good man or a bad man is all in the hands of the editor.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:00AM (#31895398)

    Cops do not like being recorded by civilians.

    Expect to be harrassed, criminally charged with trumped-up charges, maybe even have illegal drugs or weapons planted on you, and in extreme cases possibly even get beaten up or even killed (depending on your location) as a result of recording any interaction with police.

  • Bicycling (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ciaohound (118419) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:03AM (#31895430)

    How about a bicycle-ride recorder, for the next time someone throws trash at you or yells obscenities.

    • Re:Bicycling (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:14AM (#31895608)

      How about a bicycle-ride recorder, so law enforcement can ticket bike riders for not obeying traffic laws like they are supposed to?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Surt (22457)

        Right, those two issues are balanced. One threatens the life of the bicycle rider. The other ... threatens the life of the bicycle rider.

    • Why would people be doing that? Strange. I ride my bike and nobody throws trash or screams at me. Maybe this random image I found on the net could shed some light on the subject [vortex.org]?
    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      I know this is off topic but there are a lot of idiots on bicycles that give bicyclists a bad rep.
      I used to ride a lot and have both a street and off road bike so I feel your pain but sometimes there are idiots that out there that cause big problems.
      A good example is one day my wife and I where driving to lunch and our bumper was in the cross walk. Not our tires mind you just a bit of the bumper. An idiot on a bicycle yelled at her and told my wife that the crosswalk as for him!
      The thing is that idiot was r

      • by Glonoinha (587375)

        If one had had a flat I would have had no choice but to hit them!

        For future reference you don't have to wait for one of them to get a flat to hit them. Just do the speed limit and stay in your lane and you will hit them regardless.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192)

      Obey the traffic laws and I won't yell obscenities at you. That includes riding on the road in the correct direction, passing me on the left unless I'm turning left, and coming to a complete stop at stop signs. I can't tell you how many people I've nearly hit because they thought a line of cars at a stop sign meant they could just speed past everyone on the right and blow through the intersection.

  • by Zero_DgZ (1047348) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:03AM (#31895436)

    I sort of use something like this today, in the gritty old present day.

    In my car I've got one of my old PDA's mounted instead of a GPS device. It's rather firmly permanently mounted to the dash until you take all the bezels off and unscrew it from the back, so I consider its risk for theft fairly low. Also, it's not mounted in the usual look-at-me GPS area but down by the driver's side kick plate.

    Anyway, I have it there because I use Pocket Excel (don't laugh) to keep track of all my invoices and orders for the day. I also have a mapping program installed, and obviously it uses GPS. I've successfully used it to defuse two frivolous traffic tickets by less-than-scrupulous police officers: Once by making it a policy to keep all of my GPS logs, and once by happening to have a hotkey for the note taker "record" function bound, so I could easily and silently (also legally, in this state!) record everything the lying police officer said.

    I've also seen on DealExtreme and other places some always-on, rolling-record capable video cameras for mounting wherever, and I've been tempted to pick one up and mount it in my car, police car style. Mailing a CD-R every month to the local precinct with video of their police officers flagrantly breaking traffic laws would be optional, but probably a lot of fun the first couple of times.

    Remember: Big Brother is only bad for you if you are not personally Big Brother!

  • by cenobyte40k (831687) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:05AM (#31895462)
    It doesn't need to have that much space. Anything over a day is more than enough for now, sure as storage and power gets smaller and cheaper having days,weeks,months or years will happen, but I think we will start to see them before they get all the way to a year at a time. Oh and when are we going to make the cops wear them? Can we start doing that now? As we know cops are involved with more violence per capita than any other group of citizens annually, year after year. (With the exception of maybe solders)
  • by StCredZero (169093) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:05AM (#31895472)

    I want such a device, but not for my person. I'd want it on my car with 360-degree coverage, but no audio. I'd like to have a record of all of my interactions with traffic police. If there's no audio, then it doesn't fall afoul of recorder laws. It would also be dandy for catching people who dent your car in parking lots. Also, I've been in the occasional traffic accident and I know that people lie in that situation.

    Of course, have it encrypt its content using RSA and randomly generated session keys, so that only I would be able to decrypt the recordings. (Even if an attacker hacks the hardware! You'd have to be able to read the RAM while the session keys were resident. You could even get around this with some judicious White Box encryption [kuleuven.be]. )

    • Cars would be a lucrative application of this technology. It would likely get your insurance rates reduced because it would help document collisions and vehicle thefts.

      I think it would also be exceptionally valuable for use with police. A camera system that records forwards and backwards could be used in court to dispute a cop's claim that a driver was swerving and might even refute a claim of speeding. It certainly could bolster a driver's claim that she fully stopped at a traffic signal. Because the co
    • by thijsh (910751)
      Excellent idea, but no need to wait for new tech... you could build this with a low power PC with some standard small camera's and record to an SSD drive (I guess they should be able to survive a crash)... As an added bonus you can add a tiny screen to the mix and create a parking camera. I'd set the system up with some harddisk encryption, but nothing over the top paranoid is needed since you should configure the system to always power off once you turn the engine off (your keys won't be in memory). There
  • If you want to experiment with this on the cheap, you can get a sub-$20 mini-cam from many online sources that records VGA-res video and sound to a microSD card for about an hour on a battery charge (battery being the limiting factor at the moment). I often use mine as a dash-cam in the car (to provide a video record in case of a traffic accident), or as a sports cam. I've thought of using it to secretly record meetings or transactions where a future dispute might arise, but haven't done so because of legal
  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:07AM (#31895498)

    so that no one can attack you without being recorded.

    recording a crime is one thing, still having the recording afterwards is another. Having a sufficiently high quality record of the assailant's voice or image is yet another. This thing might, just be usful as a "black box" in a car, but to have it strapped to your person? Nah!

  • by alispguru (72689) <bane&gst,com> on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:08AM (#31895512) Journal
    Stereo mikes on the temples, heads-up display on the lenses, wirelessly connected to the wallet-sized CPU/Internet-connection box. I want it clearly stated that the US 5th Amendment covers this, though.
  • Well, there's another prediction from David Brin's Earth down. http://earthbydavidbrin.pbworks.com/Predictions [pbworks.com]
  • Opt me out on this one. I don't need anyone monitoring me 24x7.

  • Lapels? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rwade (131726) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:12AM (#31895580)

    A "life recorder" you can wear on your lapel

    Who wears jackets with lapels all day anymore? This is not an irrelevant question -- I'm not sure where I'd put this thing if I were wearing just a t-shirt.

  • Islands in the Net (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mattr (78516) <mattr AT telebody DOT com> on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:17AM (#31895648) Homepage Journal

    In Bruce Sterling's Islands in the Net [wikipedia.org], the protagonist wears video sunglasses (1988). Streaming to the net live is seen as a shield. Even now, clearly it would be safer to stream it than carry the video on you.

    No bets about quality of the recording. However a cue might be taken from the "smart bandaid" wireless health sensors that are being developed now, with enough power to reach a wristwatch or pocket device. What market opportunity (and perhaps technological advance) needs to be presented to camera manufacturers in order to get them to package small wireless audio/video sensors for the mass market?

  • There are 12 states where recording a conversation of any conversation without all parties consent is illegal.

    http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/the-legality-of-recording-conversations.aspx [quickanddirtytips.com]

  • Ever seen a video of a cameraman in a fight? Camera goes haywire and you can't see anything but a big blur. But, like most security snake oil, I'm sure that won't make any difference to the buyers.
  • "200 gigabytes/year for audio" is not "still a few generations off" unless you particularly need the device to keep data locally for long periods.

    200Gbyte/year is just over half a Gig per day. You could store nearly a fortnight on an 8Gb microsd card (which are not expensive and are very small even with the required read/write interface (see http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.25557 [dealextreme.com] for a small one, and this device would not need the physical USB interface so could easily be made smaller)). As long as

  • When the Gov force you to reveal the recorder's contents...http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10172866-38.html

  • OMG!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by owlnation (858981) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:30AM (#31895858)
    It's like twitter with moving pictures.

    Here's some footage of me taking a dump...

    And it will only make it so much easier for every cheap whore celebutard to release a sex tape, or some other low-life publicity stunt.

    Do NOT want.
  • by dotfile (536191) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:30AM (#31895860)
    How many things are wrong with this kooky idea? Completely ineffective if you're attacked from behind, if your assailant wears a mask, if the attack happens at night, etc. Of course the very FIRST thing that's going to get stolen is your "life recorder", so now your mugger knows your ATM PIN code, all your passwords, your address, your home, your family, your friends, EVERYTHING. Your "life recorder" will of course provide evidence against you in any trial. Your employer will use it to prove you've been slacking off or sneaking off to your car for a company policy prohibited smoke. Use your imagination, there's almost NO upside to this.

    If you live in constant fear of being attacked, you either need counseling or you REALLY need to move somewhere else. This country is full of small towns, medium sized cities, and even larger cities where you will be quite safe.
  • by nomadic (141991)
    "In 2006, writing about future threats on privacy, I described a life recorder: A "life recorder" you can wear on your lapel that constantly records is still a few generations off: 200 gigabytes/year for audio and 700 gigabytes/year for video. It'll be sold as a security device, so that no one can attack you without being recorded."

    Ok, so you foretold a life recorder in 2006 on your blog. Some other guy has now suggested the same thing on his blog. The technology still isn't around. Is any part of thi
  • by Rockoon (1252108) on Monday April 19, 2010 @10:32AM (#31895882)
    The assumption the author is making is that there is always something to record. I'm pretty sure that the 1/3rd of the year that a person sleeps will contain highly compressible audio, not to mention the fact that he seems to think that a 64kbps bitrate is a requirement.

    Regular telephone quality audio (from the "you can hear a pin drop" era) was considered to be about 8,000 samples per/second, which is in fact 64kbps for an 8-bit sample depth. This is uncompressed recording here. TFA can't beat uncompressed telephone quality audio? Really?
  • A shame.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by greyworld (802114)
    When I read the article, I thought - thats a great device, something to record my life, like a diary.
    Then I realised it was conceived as anti violent crime device. Thats so depressing, Its not magic diary, its a bulletproof vest for daily life!
    Why are Americans so afraid of violence?
    How many good ideas get subverted in the name of personal protection?
    I found that really sad.. Andrew
  • has been in SciFi for sometime.

    It would also tie in very nicely with the ideas in the show "Caprica" where a persons experiences (including thoughts, diaries, emails, etc...) can all be datamined to create a virtual copy of the person.

  • This little bundle of technology has been shown to radically improve recall in Alzheimers patients. Here's the study: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/sensecam/memory.htm [microsoft.com]

    I've taken something like 200,000 photos over the past 13 years... and I've noticed I can remember almost everything about days that I have pictures from... and not very much of the rest.

    I want one of these far more than I fear someone else having access to it.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Cut_(2004_film) [wikipedia.org]

    The Final Cut is a film written and directed by Omar Naim, released in 2004. The cast includes Robin Williams, James Caviezel, Mira Sorvino, Christopher Britton, and Genevieve Buechner. It was produced by the Canadian production company, Lions Gate Entertainment and filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and in Berlin, Germany. The film featured original music by Brian Tyler. The story takes place in a near future in which people can pay to have

  • "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I present Exhibit B, the Life Recorder audio of the murder..."

    (Bang!)

    (Thud.)

    "Clearly you can tell by the audio that my defendant is innocent."

  • by azgard (461476) on Monday April 19, 2010 @11:11AM (#31896442)

    Unfortunately, it is probably very unlawful to do it. I like the idea, I wouldn't mind it at all, if only I had access to the recording and could switch it off.

    Various people mentioned laws against it, and also need for explicit consent (as opposed to implicit disagreement with someone doing that, which would be an alternative in society where such device is commonplace). I see another problem - at work, I work as a programmer, and it would be illegal for me to videotape my work and take it away.

  • by GuyFawkes (729054) on Monday April 19, 2010 @04:53PM (#31901996) Homepage Journal

    Seriously, lots of guys / cops / teachers falsely accused of various shit could rent these at a thousand bucks a month, and still end up way ahead on money alone, plus they'd keep their jobs and reputations.

A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle

Working...