5 ms·

The device doesn't start listening when you say the wake word, the device is always listening. It's only the UX that responds when the presence of the wake wor

The device doesn't start listening when you say the wake word, the device is always listening. It's only the UX that responds when the presence of the wake word is detected. This means that the device is continuously monitoring the environment for the presence of the wake word we know about ("Alexa"). Can the device monitor for other words that trigger other UX sequences? Of course it can! Can Amazon deliver an OTA update to this network connected device to change behavior after it leaves the factory? There is no reason to believe that they cannot. So, no, I don't believe the police are wrong here. In fact, I would be in favor of law enforcement having the ability to "tap" these network-attached microphone appliances with a warrant. Then, perhaps, people will begin to understand what they've really bought. EDIT: Passive monitoring ("listening") is not the same thing as storage ("recording"). In some cases below, these are being conflated.

supergeek133 10y ago
You're making quite a few assumptions. 1) The device is storing any amount of locally recorded audio. So far evidence says no. 2) Amazon would OTA all echos to upload everything it hears. So far evidence says this hasn't happened. It also likely won't because IMO security people monitor these devices more than anything else on the planet. Some I believe for good reasons, the others just want to play gotcha. 3) If 1 and 2 are true, Amazon keeps the data for an extended period of time. Can we please not tinfoil hat the hell out of these devices like we do the rest of IoT sometimes?
- politician 10y ago
  I've responded to your position elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13264644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13264644
- jdiez17 10y ago
  (I think) the argument your parent is making is that Amazon could easily send a software update to a specific Echo to make it record everything it hears.
  - supergeek133 10y ago
    If at the request of the government, yeah that's a problem unless there is some kind of warrant, right? I'm all for people being suspicious, but the intent of this was to say "the cops are hoping it might catch something" as in it was accidentally triggered.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      If at the request of the government, yeah that's a problem unless there is some kind of warrant, right? Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
      - supergeek133 10y ago
        Yes and that's a problem with law not catching up with technology. Unfortunately for many people in the country, other social/financial issues are more important to them.
  - johnsmith21006 10y ago
    Or any smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc. This is the world we live in.
  - visarga 10y ago
    Or send audio surveillance data only when it has a legitimate excuse to communicate with Amazon, like, when you're streaming music or making a query.
rz2k 10y ago
Should the police be able to enter any house with locks they can pick? I suppose that would educate people, too. edit: I misread the comment as, "without a warrant"! Ugh
- politician 10y ago
  I don't understand your rebuttal. Are you disputing that LE does not have the ability to request a wire tap from a judge with a warrant? Wouldn't you want the police be able to intervene when they hear or observe shouting or fighting through an open door or window? Are you suggesting that a network-attached microphone is not equivalent to an open window? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine)
  - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
    >Wouldn't you want the police be able to intervene when they hear or observe shouting or fighting through an open door or window? Different things. In a closed room, there is expectation of privacy. It is not the same for what can be seen from an open window. Also, there is no assurance that LE won't misuse this to crush any dissent or silence somebody they don't like. It is easy to take something said at home out of context or doctor it to sound like something else.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      I think the media have made it clear to the public that there's no expectation of privacy around these devices, and that there would be a hard case to make in court that someone was so insulated from the media that they wouldn't have any knowledge of what those products could be enabled to do with full, legal collaboration between law enforcement and the manufacturer.
      - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
        This argument will not stand in the courts. Data collection without consent is illegal, which is why there is so much controversy around the stingray things. Getting a warrant to look at the data may be legal, but collecting the said data without consent is illegal in the first place.
Negitivefrags 10y ago
> In fact, I would be in favor of law enforcement having the ability to "tap" these network-attached microphone appliances with a warrant. Then, perhaps, people will begin to understand what they've really bought. All your arguments apply equally to any smart phone. It's another network attached microphone. Are you in favor of it there too?
- smokeyj 10y ago
  Why not? Seems like a subpoenad record would serve as an effective canary for determining what end user data is actually stored. Taken to the next step, LEA should be able to ask google alone for your browsing history for the last 10 years based on Google Analytics. Storing customer data should be seen as a corporate liability if you're not upfront about what is stored, used and how.

supergeek133 10y ago

You're making quite a few assumptions. 1) The device is storing any amount of locally recorded audio. So far evidence says no. 2) Amazon would OTA all echos to upload everything it hears. So far evidence says this hasn't happened. It also likely won't because IMO security people monitor these devices more than anything else on the planet. Some I believe for good reasons, the others just want to play gotcha. 3) If 1 and 2 are true, Amazon keeps the data for an extended period of time. Can we please not tinfoil hat the hell out of these devices like we do the rest of IoT sometimes?

politician 10y ago
I've responded to your position elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13264644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13264644
jdiez17 10y ago
(I think) the argument your parent is making is that Amazon could easily send a software update to a specific Echo to make it record everything it hears.
- supergeek133 10y ago
  If at the request of the government, yeah that's a problem unless there is some kind of warrant, right? I'm all for people being suspicious, but the intent of this was to say "the cops are hoping it might catch something" as in it was accidentally triggered.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    If at the request of the government, yeah that's a problem unless there is some kind of warrant, right? Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
    - supergeek133 10y ago
      Yes and that's a problem with law not catching up with technology. Unfortunately for many people in the country, other social/financial issues are more important to them.
- johnsmith21006 10y ago
  Or any smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc. This is the world we live in.
- visarga 10y ago
  Or send audio surveillance data only when it has a legitimate excuse to communicate with Amazon, like, when you're streaming music or making a query.

rz2k 10y ago

Should the police be able to enter any house with locks they can pick? I suppose that would educate people, too. edit: I misread the comment as, "without a warrant"! Ugh

politician 10y ago
I don't understand your rebuttal. Are you disputing that LE does not have the ability to request a wire tap from a judge with a warrant? Wouldn't you want the police be able to intervene when they hear or observe shouting or fighting through an open door or window? Are you suggesting that a network-attached microphone is not equivalent to an open window? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine)
- vaishaksuresh 10y ago
  >Wouldn't you want the police be able to intervene when they hear or observe shouting or fighting through an open door or window? Different things. In a closed room, there is expectation of privacy. It is not the same for what can be seen from an open window. Also, there is no assurance that LE won't misuse this to crush any dissent or silence somebody they don't like. It is easy to take something said at home out of context or doctor it to sound like something else.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    I think the media have made it clear to the public that there's no expectation of privacy around these devices, and that there would be a hard case to make in court that someone was so insulated from the media that they wouldn't have any knowledge of what those products could be enabled to do with full, legal collaboration between law enforcement and the manufacturer.
    - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
      This argument will not stand in the courts. Data collection without consent is illegal, which is why there is so much controversy around the stingray things. Getting a warrant to look at the data may be legal, but collecting the said data without consent is illegal in the first place.

Negitivefrags 10y ago

> In fact, I would be in favor of law enforcement having the ability to "tap" these network-attached microphone appliances with a warrant. Then, perhaps, people will begin to understand what they've really bought. All your arguments apply equally to any smart phone. It's another network attached microphone. Are you in favor of it there too?

smokeyj 10y ago
Why not? Seems like a subpoenad record would serve as an effective canary for determining what end user data is actually stored. Taken to the next step, LEA should be able to ask google alone for your browsing history for the last 10 years based on Google Analytics. Storing customer data should be seen as a corporate liability if you're not upfront about what is stored, used and how.