this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
3 points (63.6% liked)

Privacy

833 readers
5 users here now

Privacy is the ability for an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.

Rules

  1. Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.
  2. No Porn, Gore, or NSFW content. Instant Ban.
  3. No Spamming, Trolling or Unsolicited Ads. Instant Ban.
  4. Stay on topic in a community. Please reach out to an admin to create a new community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
c0mmando@links.hackliberty.org
3
When someone speaks anonymously on the radio and criticize their gov ([cough]Russia[cough]Israel[cough]), do their voice prints give them away? (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 8 months ago by freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz to c/privacy@links.hackliberty.org
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In the US banks are capturing the voices of their customers who contact their call centers for any reason. So if a USian vocally says something controversial they probably have no hope of anonymity if they called their bank in recent years.

Is the same thing not happening in Russia and Israel? An IDF soldier came on broadcast radio and criticized Israel, and a Russian citizen criticized Putin. Shouldn’t they be concerned about doxxing risks?

It would be reckless if the radio station did not disguise their voices, but I don’t get the impression their voices are being disguised. So I just wonder if voice disguising tech is so good at making the voice sound natural that it’s not detectable.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you want to be really strict, both your voice and the words you choose could give you away. Ideally you would let AI rewrite your text and also voice it with AI, so there is no link to you. Then still that doesn't protect you from accidental OPSEC failures, but that is always a given.

Perhaps this isn't an issue today, but everything is being stored and might become an issue in the future.

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That’s a good point. Word choice would be quite low quality evidence prone to a high error rate, thus unsuitable as direct evidence, but it’s perhaps sufficient to get someone (if not the wrong person) on the radar for targeted surveillance. While voice prints are a sufficiently high quality biometric that banks are trusting them for identification purposes.

In any case, voice disguising should be an obligatory minimum whenever someone speaks to journalists on the condition of anonymity.