13 ms·

Amazon refuses to let police access US murder suspect’s Echo recordings

128 points by SmkyMt 10y ago

kristianc 10y ago
Am I right in thinking that this means that all comms between the Echo device and AWS are end-to-end encrypted? Big plus for the devices, if so.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  While I've got no doubt that they are end-to-end encrypted, this certainly doesn't even suggest that.
  - kristianc 10y ago
    If they weren't encrypted, could they not just get the data via 'other channels' anyway?
    - ryanlol 10y ago
      Some arkansas cops investigating run-of-the-mill violent crime aren't going to be able to get access to retroactive packet captures of this guys connection. Even the NSA probably couldn't get such packet captures, but they'd be able to get the data from Amazons end.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        The NSA may be a different story. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora
  - johnward 10y ago
    Does this not suggest that Amazon could provide unencrypted audio files from their servers? That's not really "end-to-end" in my mind.
    - ryanlol 10y ago
      End-to-end just means that the communications between two parties are encrypted, in this case between you and Amazon.
- x1798DE 10y ago
  While technically an accurate description, I generally don't think of encryption that terminates at a service provider as "end to end". I usually think of end to end encryption in the sense of messaging, where it is encrypted when one human sends it and is decrypted when another human opens it.
  - fixermark 10y ago
    By that definition, encryption for a cloud-based home automation system is impossible, right? "Here's the command from the Echo Dot." "Great, what should I do?" "Can't tell you; it's encrypted."
    - x1798DE 10y ago
      I think techncially it's possible for certain operations using homomorphic encryption[1], where operations performed on encrypted data result in an appropriate transformation of the plaintext data, but I am fairly certain that's not widely used, and I think Amazon would make a big deal out of it if it were used with the Echo. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption
thrillgore 10y ago
First thought that comes to mind is: If Amazon lets the police access the Echo it would prove they're constantly listening, even if the device is in "Mute" mode Which is really the main reason why I have avoided these smart speakers. Encrypt them all you want. Send a NSL and all the sudden you've made wiretapping that easier. And that would be very bad for business.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  >First thought that comes to mind is: If Amazon lets the police access the Echo it would prove they're constantly listening, even if the device is in "Mute" mode Yeah, but this is entirely ridiculous. It's trivial for anyone with access to the device to verify that it most likely doesn't do that.
  - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
    I like your qualifier, "most likely". How would one determine if it is not buffering and compressing data client-side for later transmission during "firmware" updates? Additionally, who has setup an automated testing framework for such things after each firmware upgrade? How many firmware upgrades have there been for the Echo? Also, how do we know that your Echo and my Echo are running the same firmware, and will always run the same firmware version?
    - ryanlol 10y ago
      >I like your qualifier, "most likely". Yeah, it gets harder when you need to be sure. >How would one determine if it is not buffering and compressing data client-side for later transmission during "firmware" updates? AFAIK you can root the device pretty easily, so you should be at least able to verify that the main OS of the device isn't doing this. >Also, how do we know that your Echo and my Echo are running the same firmware, and will always run the same firmware version? Boot them both from a read only SD card.
      - notsoeasy 10y ago
superkuh 10y ago
More importantly, the headline should read: "Police use high time resolution data from modern water meter against man charged with murder." Basically this Abstruse Goose comic, http://abstrusegoose.com/553 http://abstrusegoose.com/553 , about the dangers of utility data logging have come true. The greater the time resolution of such things the more can be inferred. Such high resolution is completely uneeded and complex in order to just charge for usage. The new wireless meters could simply send daily lump sums and still be wireless and easy. But instead they abuse the functionality in order to intrude on the lives of everyone.
- Hondor 10y ago
  Isn't it a good thing to record data that helps solve a murder? The police are still getting it with a warrant and presumably from physical access to the device, so it's not the same worry as bulk monitoring.
  - Filligree 10y ago
    In the case of a murder, it's a good thing. The risk is always the chance of abuse, and although in the case of water stats it's hard to imagine how you'd abuse it, having more information always means a higher chance. Ideally we'd want to get the benefits without the abuse, but that requires a solid bureaucracy and strong rules.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      You can tell when someone's home or not from utility usage.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Godel_unicode 10y ago
        Timers and automation are a thing.
zubspace 10y ago
How can they refuse to provide the recordings in case of a warrant? It makes no sense. They even acknowledge that the device is not always-on and therefore probably not useful. Because of bad publicity? If the police stands in front of my house with a warrant to search my belongings, can I refuse that? Does it make sense if I have nothing to hide? The recordings of the water meter is more interesting and the possible combination with other devices, including the Echo. In case of a housing with lots of IOT-Devices the police could reconstruct the actions within based on the stored information, like when did someone eat, turn on the lights, wash hands, open the door, watch TV...
- FroshKiller 10y ago
  A warrant is not the same as a subpoena. But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea. If people and corporations don't assert their rights against the will of the state, they erode the foundation of our shared liberties.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    >But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea Very much agree, because there's a difference between being "innocent" and actually innocent. Only the former matters, it's subjective (jury/judge) and unknown to everyone but you, ex ante. Sometimes the police are more invested in finding a criminal rather than the criminal.
    - zubspace 10y ago
      Usually a warrant will only last a short time and the issuer must name a specific thing they are looking for. In this case it's clear that they only need to provide the data for a specific person. I also believe that Amazon could provide that data alone. So what makes them refuse?
      - jschwartzi 10y ago
        Because if they don't, I'll tell all my friends that Alexa is being used to monitor their speech for law enforcement, and to not say anything incriminating around one.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fixermark 10y ago
When Eric Schmidt said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," this is pretty much what he was talking about. We live in a society where passive, ubiquitous, voluntarily-accepted monitoring is becoming the norm because of the vast convenience it affords the users. The flip-side of that coin is of course breaks in your regular pattern of behavior are going to show up in the data trail. Rather than blame the data trail, maybe we can just all agree to a societal understanding that if you're going to take up murder as a hobby, it might be somewhat incompatible with your other cloud-based ubiquitous-computing hobbies?
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  This is the exact thing we have to fight against because it leads to class based systems. Those who use cloud computing are innocent and those who don't are presumably hiding something. This is the why we have constitutional rights, to avoid such broad generalizations. Everyone has the right to privacy, regardless of what utilities or Hobbies they have.
  - fixermark 10y ago
    Everyone has a right to prevention of unreasonable search and seizure. It's still up in the air whether going to a third-party to whom you've voluntarily given a bunch of information about yourself and asking that third-party to render that information is "unreasonable." It's pretty simple to make a case that it isn't. To wit: there's plenty of legal precedent for compelling a witness to testify against someone; are we to believe that your Amazon logs or your water meter history should share the same privileged status as your attorney, psychotherapist, or priest? "Alexa, forgive me, for I have sinned..."
    - pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
      Everyone has a right to bear arms. turkey used that right, with a single gun and a single bullet, to end a war that billions of dollars of US resources couldn't. Russia backed away, and putin cried. If ANYONE attempts an unreasonable search or seizure: KILL THEM WITH YOUR GUN. the founding fathers EXPECT you to. of course, this is the other side of the same coin... "if you're doing something that someone might kill you over, perhaps you shouldn't be doing it"... as long as we keep killing perpetrators, we eventually won't have to. you are all pussies. you have done this to yourselves. you're completely pathetic. you're all idiots.
misja111 10y ago
I'm wondering, what if the suspect agreed with the request of the police to check the Echo recordings? Suppose the suspect is innocent and thinks that allowing access to the Echo recordings can only make his case stronger. Would Amazon then still refuse access?
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  Does Amazon not provide access to your recordings similar to how Google does with OK Google recordings? That seems easier.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    The cops can't be certain if the suspect hasn't deleted incriminating recordings.
    - Godel_unicode 10y ago
      How is that different from you giving them access to your text messages? Edit: IANAL, but pretty sure deleting incriminating evidence is obstruction of justice
      - icebraining 10y ago
        I don't think it is. I expect cops to ask the provider for a copy of the messages as well. pretty sure deleting incriminating evidence is obstruction of justice Probably, but so what?
        Godel_unicode 10y ago
        This thread started with the idea that someone might want their Alexa records as evidence of their innocence. I doubt that an innocent person would commit a crime to remove potentially incriminating evidence from their voluntarily offered evidence. The prosecution very well might subpoena those records if they thought there was value in so doing. Edit: grammars
jankotek 10y ago
Real WTF here is that Amazon is actually recording this. They break many laws by doing that. edit: Why downvotes? It is illegal to do voice recording without a consent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_recording_by_civilians#Voice_recording https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_recording_by_civil...
- tylerhou 10y ago
  What laws specifically?
  - jankotek 10y ago
    In some states you need to notify all parties (or get their consent) before you record their voice. EULA does not cover it, your visitors did not signed it. Only way is to put label: "This area is monitored by CCTV"... Also recording phone calls could be illegal. Amazon should put disclaimer before every conversation :-) me: "Alexa" al: "This conversation might be recorded for monitoring and training purposes" me: "Call Dad"
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  Can you clarify? It sounds like you're implying that Amazon is breaking the law by using the cloud for voice recognition?
  - jankotek 10y ago
    Amazon would break the law, if their persisted data uploaded to their servers. Article implies they do that. (I am not lawyer)
- johnward 10y ago
  Are they breaking a law when, I assume, I agreed to let them do this in the first place,?
- gumby 10y ago
  If in fact they are recording; we don't know. And I don't know what laws might be broken were they to do so. Note: I'm talking about general recording. You can tell from the Alexa app that they keep the queries themselves since you can review them yourself. Do the police hope the accused said to the device, "Alexa, how do I murder someone?"
jmuguy 10y ago
Has anyone, Amazon or otherwise, clarified what the Echo is actually recording? If anything? My use of the Echo and my reading of the information available from Amazon indicated that nothing of any value was ever recorded/saved. /edit Ok, I'm an idiot. I see now that the app has a history of my commands and their audio recordings. Which is actually kind of creepy. But then I wonder why the police don't just check this guy's Alexa app on his phone. And maybe that's the real question - are they asking Amazon to provide some sort of recording of everything the device heard that night?
- supergeek133 10y ago
  No, they're asking amazon to provide everything it recorded. Publicly they're saying it might have been accidentally triggered (e.g, device thinking it heard the wakeword) Privately, they're hoping it records everything. However to date, wireshark investigations and other forensics people have done proves it only sends data to the cloud when you ask it the wakeword.
droithomme 10y ago
The article title seems misleading. It says "Amazon refuses to let police access US murder suspect's Echo recordings" and in the article says "Amazon has refused to hand over recordings from an Echo smart speaker to US police investigating a murder in Arkansas". However, the article then points out that the device only has an audio buffer of a few seconds and there are no such recordings: "the vast majority of the recordings it makes are not saved for longer than the few seconds it takes to determine if a pre-set “wake word” (usually “Alexa”) has been said. Only if that wake word has been heard does the device’s full complement of microphones come on and begin transmitting audio to Amazon." So it would seem Amazon isn't "refusing" to hand over recordings. Amazon just doesn't have recordings of everything that is said around it retained long term.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  USA Today has a few more details and got a statement from Amazon about it. Amazon refused to answer the requests. Specifically, the Bentonville Police Department requested "electronic data in the form of audio recordings, transcribed records, or other text records related to communications and transactions between An AmazonEchoh device" located at Bates' residence and Amazon.com's services between Nov. 21 and 22, court documents show. Amazon refused both times. In a statement to USA TODAY, Amazon said will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on it. Amazon objects to over broad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course, the company said. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/27/amazon-alexa-echo-murder-case-bentonville-hot-tub-james-andrew-bates/95879532/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/27/amazon-al...
  - infogulch 10y ago
    To be fair, compared to some other law enforcement requests I've seen recently this is reasonably narrow. From this specific device, and only one day. Still, they need to get a warrant.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      > Still, they need to get a warrant Isn't that what they do? Article says "Arkansas police issued a warrant to Amazon to turn over recordings and other information associated with the device owned by James Andrew Bates."
010a 10y ago
I'm curious if this situation would be different if the Echo was owned by the victim, and the murder happened at the victim's house.
aburan28 10y ago
Actually the headline for this should be "Amazon PR team spins disturbing surveillance capabilities via Echo to make it seem like they are fighting for privacy"
throw7 10y ago
This is really hard to support the headline from the story. The artical says Amazon twice declined to hand over Echo data... I'm presuming because the police didn't have a warrant. The article says Amazon has been handed over a warrant (now?)... so... Amazon will or will not refuse to hand over the data now with warrant in hand???
getpost 10y ago
Slightly off topic, but this brings up the issue of whether data maintained using technological means is correct. And how can the correctness be verified or refuted? For example, suppose Amazon does provide data in reply to the warrant. How is anyone sure it's the data from the specified device at the time in question? Database errors happen all the time. It might be possible to use other means to assure that the data is correct, but it's unlikely anyone with the necessary knowledge would be assigned to this task. Similarly, in LA, there are no fare gates at metro train stations. Occasionally police stop people leaving the station to check whether fare is paid by scanning the transit smart card. What if the card malfunctions? What if the scanning device outputs the wrong information? I have no way of contesting or verifying the information on these devices. It would be me, the passenger, held to account, not the infrastructure technology.
- supergeek133 10y ago
  That's why in serious criminal cases we have trial by jury and not technology. If your only evidence is a 20 second recording from an Echo, you shouldn't be going to trial. Poor DNA evidence/practices have wrongly convicted people, they have also exonerated people that were wrongly convicted.
djrogers 10y ago
How is this any different from a bank refusing to release financial records, or a phone company refusing to release phone records? These both happen all the time in criminal investigations, and I don't see a ton of recommendations to stay away from banks and homes here on HN...
tibarun 10y ago
Amazon pays Guardian for help in PR campaign.
dang 10y ago
This had a major thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13263894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13263894, so by the usual standard this is a dupe, unless it contains significant new information. Since both articles are lifted from The Information's paywalled original, I'm guessing that's unlikely.
hash-set 10y ago
It's creepy how the surveillance state is edging its way into our homes so voluntarily. Look at all the IoT projects with cameras and this Amazon Echo device. All a subpoena away. Oh, and let's not forget "just put all your data in the cloud" and then a court finds that "cloud" is not subject to your personal possessions...

128 points by SmkyMt 10y ago

Am I right in thinking that this means that all comms between the Echo device and AWS are end-to-end encrypted? Big plus for the devices, if so.

ryanlol 10y ago
While I've got no doubt that they are end-to-end encrypted, this certainly doesn't even suggest that.
- kristianc 10y ago
  If they weren't encrypted, could they not just get the data via 'other channels' anyway?
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    Some arkansas cops investigating run-of-the-mill violent crime aren't going to be able to get access to retroactive packet captures of this guys connection. Even the NSA probably couldn't get such packet captures, but they'd be able to get the data from Amazons end.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      The NSA may be a different story. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora
- johnward 10y ago
  Does this not suggest that Amazon could provide unencrypted audio files from their servers? That's not really "end-to-end" in my mind.
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    End-to-end just means that the communications between two parties are encrypted, in this case between you and Amazon.
x1798DE 10y ago
While technically an accurate description, I generally don't think of encryption that terminates at a service provider as "end to end". I usually think of end to end encryption in the sense of messaging, where it is encrypted when one human sends it and is decrypted when another human opens it.
- fixermark 10y ago
  By that definition, encryption for a cloud-based home automation system is impossible, right? "Here's the command from the Echo Dot." "Great, what should I do?" "Can't tell you; it's encrypted."
  - x1798DE 10y ago
    I think techncially it's possible for certain operations using homomorphic encryption[1], where operations performed on encrypted data result in an appropriate transformation of the plaintext data, but I am fairly certain that's not widely used, and I think Amazon would make a big deal out of it if it were used with the Echo. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption

thrillgore 10y ago

First thought that comes to mind is: If Amazon lets the police access the Echo it would prove they're constantly listening, even if the device is in "Mute" mode Which is really the main reason why I have avoided these smart speakers. Encrypt them all you want. Send a NSL and all the sudden you've made wiretapping that easier. And that would be very bad for business.

ryanlol 10y ago
>First thought that comes to mind is: If Amazon lets the police access the Echo it would prove they're constantly listening, even if the device is in "Mute" mode Yeah, but this is entirely ridiculous. It's trivial for anyone with access to the device to verify that it most likely doesn't do that.
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  I like your qualifier, "most likely". How would one determine if it is not buffering and compressing data client-side for later transmission during "firmware" updates? Additionally, who has setup an automated testing framework for such things after each firmware upgrade? How many firmware upgrades have there been for the Echo? Also, how do we know that your Echo and my Echo are running the same firmware, and will always run the same firmware version?
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    >I like your qualifier, "most likely". Yeah, it gets harder when you need to be sure. >How would one determine if it is not buffering and compressing data client-side for later transmission during "firmware" updates? AFAIK you can root the device pretty easily, so you should be at least able to verify that the main OS of the device isn't doing this. >Also, how do we know that your Echo and my Echo are running the same firmware, and will always run the same firmware version? Boot them both from a read only SD card.
    - notsoeasy 10y ago

superkuh 10y ago

More importantly, the headline should read: "Police use high time resolution data from modern water meter against man charged with murder." Basically this Abstruse Goose comic, http://abstrusegoose.com/553 http://abstrusegoose.com/553 , about the dangers of utility data logging have come true. The greater the time resolution of such things the more can be inferred. Such high resolution is completely uneeded and complex in order to just charge for usage. The new wireless meters could simply send daily lump sums and still be wireless and easy. But instead they abuse the functionality in order to intrude on the lives of everyone.

Hondor 10y ago
Isn't it a good thing to record data that helps solve a murder? The police are still getting it with a warrant and presumably from physical access to the device, so it's not the same worry as bulk monitoring.
- Filligree 10y ago
  In the case of a murder, it's a good thing. The risk is always the chance of abuse, and although in the case of water stats it's hard to imagine how you'd abuse it, having more information always means a higher chance. Ideally we'd want to get the benefits without the abuse, but that requires a solid bureaucracy and strong rules.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    You can tell when someone's home or not from utility usage.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Godel_unicode 10y ago
      Timers and automation are a thing.

zubspace 10y ago

How can they refuse to provide the recordings in case of a warrant? It makes no sense. They even acknowledge that the device is not always-on and therefore probably not useful. Because of bad publicity? If the police stands in front of my house with a warrant to search my belongings, can I refuse that? Does it make sense if I have nothing to hide? The recordings of the water meter is more interesting and the possible combination with other devices, including the Echo. In case of a housing with lots of IOT-Devices the police could reconstruct the actions within based on the stored information, like when did someone eat, turn on the lights, wash hands, open the door, watch TV...

FroshKiller 10y ago
A warrant is not the same as a subpoena. But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea. If people and corporations don't assert their rights against the will of the state, they erode the foundation of our shared liberties.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea Very much agree, because there's a difference between being "innocent" and actually innocent. Only the former matters, it's subjective (jury/judge) and unknown to everyone but you, ex ante. Sometimes the police are more invested in finding a criminal rather than the criminal.
  - zubspace 10y ago
    Usually a warrant will only last a short time and the issuer must name a specific thing they are looking for. In this case it's clear that they only need to provide the data for a specific person. I also believe that Amazon could provide that data alone. So what makes them refuse?
    - jschwartzi 10y ago
      Because if they don't, I'll tell all my friends that Alexa is being used to monitor their speech for law enforcement, and to not say anything incriminating around one.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

fixermark 10y ago

When Eric Schmidt said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," this is pretty much what he was talking about. We live in a society where passive, ubiquitous, voluntarily-accepted monitoring is becoming the norm because of the vast convenience it affords the users. The flip-side of that coin is of course breaks in your regular pattern of behavior are going to show up in the data trail. Rather than blame the data trail, maybe we can just all agree to a societal understanding that if you're going to take up murder as a hobby, it might be somewhat incompatible with your other cloud-based ubiquitous-computing hobbies?

wheelerwj 10y ago
This is the exact thing we have to fight against because it leads to class based systems. Those who use cloud computing are innocent and those who don't are presumably hiding something. This is the why we have constitutional rights, to avoid such broad generalizations. Everyone has the right to privacy, regardless of what utilities or Hobbies they have.
- fixermark 10y ago
  Everyone has a right to prevention of unreasonable search and seizure. It's still up in the air whether going to a third-party to whom you've voluntarily given a bunch of information about yourself and asking that third-party to render that information is "unreasonable." It's pretty simple to make a case that it isn't. To wit: there's plenty of legal precedent for compelling a witness to testify against someone; are we to believe that your Amazon logs or your water meter history should share the same privileged status as your attorney, psychotherapist, or priest? "Alexa, forgive me, for I have sinned..."
  - pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
    Everyone has a right to bear arms. turkey used that right, with a single gun and a single bullet, to end a war that billions of dollars of US resources couldn't. Russia backed away, and putin cried. If ANYONE attempts an unreasonable search or seizure: KILL THEM WITH YOUR GUN. the founding fathers EXPECT you to. of course, this is the other side of the same coin... "if you're doing something that someone might kill you over, perhaps you shouldn't be doing it"... as long as we keep killing perpetrators, we eventually won't have to. you are all pussies. you have done this to yourselves. you're completely pathetic. you're all idiots.

misja111 10y ago

I'm wondering, what if the suspect agreed with the request of the police to check the Echo recordings? Suppose the suspect is innocent and thinks that allowing access to the Echo recordings can only make his case stronger. Would Amazon then still refuse access?

Godel_unicode 10y ago
Does Amazon not provide access to your recordings similar to how Google does with OK Google recordings? That seems easier.
- icebraining 10y ago
  The cops can't be certain if the suspect hasn't deleted incriminating recordings.
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    How is that different from you giving them access to your text messages? Edit: IANAL, but pretty sure deleting incriminating evidence is obstruction of justice
    - icebraining 10y ago
      I don't think it is. I expect cops to ask the provider for a copy of the messages as well. pretty sure deleting incriminating evidence is obstruction of justice Probably, but so what?
      - Godel_unicode 10y ago
        This thread started with the idea that someone might want their Alexa records as evidence of their innocence. I doubt that an innocent person would commit a crime to remove potentially incriminating evidence from their voluntarily offered evidence. The prosecution very well might subpoena those records if they thought there was value in so doing. Edit: grammars

jankotek 10y ago

Real WTF here is that Amazon is actually recording this. They break many laws by doing that. edit: Why downvotes? It is illegal to do voice recording without a consent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_recording_by_civilians#Voice_recording https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_recording_by_civil...

tylerhou 10y ago
What laws specifically?
- jankotek 10y ago
  In some states you need to notify all parties (or get their consent) before you record their voice. EULA does not cover it, your visitors did not signed it. Only way is to put label: "This area is monitored by CCTV"... Also recording phone calls could be illegal. Amazon should put disclaimer before every conversation :-) me: "Alexa" al: "This conversation might be recorded for monitoring and training purposes" me: "Call Dad"
Godel_unicode 10y ago
Can you clarify? It sounds like you're implying that Amazon is breaking the law by using the cloud for voice recognition?
- jankotek 10y ago
  Amazon would break the law, if their persisted data uploaded to their servers. Article implies they do that. (I am not lawyer)
johnward 10y ago
Are they breaking a law when, I assume, I agreed to let them do this in the first place,?
gumby 10y ago
If in fact they are recording; we don't know. And I don't know what laws might be broken were they to do so. Note: I'm talking about general recording. You can tell from the Alexa app that they keep the queries themselves since you can review them yourself. Do the police hope the accused said to the device, "Alexa, how do I murder someone?"

jmuguy 10y ago

Has anyone, Amazon or otherwise, clarified what the Echo is actually recording? If anything? My use of the Echo and my reading of the information available from Amazon indicated that nothing of any value was ever recorded/saved. /edit Ok, I'm an idiot. I see now that the app has a history of my commands and their audio recordings. Which is actually kind of creepy. But then I wonder why the police don't just check this guy's Alexa app on his phone. And maybe that's the real question - are they asking Amazon to provide some sort of recording of everything the device heard that night?

supergeek133 10y ago
No, they're asking amazon to provide everything it recorded. Publicly they're saying it might have been accidentally triggered (e.g, device thinking it heard the wakeword) Privately, they're hoping it records everything. However to date, wireshark investigations and other forensics people have done proves it only sends data to the cloud when you ask it the wakeword.

droithomme 10y ago

The article title seems misleading. It says "Amazon refuses to let police access US murder suspect's Echo recordings" and in the article says "Amazon has refused to hand over recordings from an Echo smart speaker to US police investigating a murder in Arkansas". However, the article then points out that the device only has an audio buffer of a few seconds and there are no such recordings: "the vast majority of the recordings it makes are not saved for longer than the few seconds it takes to determine if a pre-set “wake word” (usually “Alexa”) has been said. Only if that wake word has been heard does the device’s full complement of microphones come on and begin transmitting audio to Amazon." So it would seem Amazon isn't "refusing" to hand over recordings. Amazon just doesn't have recordings of everything that is said around it retained long term.

maxerickson 10y ago
USA Today has a few more details and got a statement from Amazon about it. Amazon refused to answer the requests. Specifically, the Bentonville Police Department requested "electronic data in the form of audio recordings, transcribed records, or other text records related to communications and transactions between An AmazonEchoh device" located at Bates' residence and Amazon.com's services between Nov. 21 and 22, court documents show. Amazon refused both times. In a statement to USA TODAY, Amazon said will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on it. Amazon objects to over broad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course, the company said. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/27/amazon-alexa-echo-murder-case-bentonville-hot-tub-james-andrew-bates/95879532/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/27/amazon-al...
- infogulch 10y ago
  To be fair, compared to some other law enforcement requests I've seen recently this is reasonably narrow. From this specific device, and only one day. Still, they need to get a warrant.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    > Still, they need to get a warrant Isn't that what they do? Article says "Arkansas police issued a warrant to Amazon to turn over recordings and other information associated with the device owned by James Andrew Bates."

010a 10y ago

I'm curious if this situation would be different if the Echo was owned by the victim, and the murder happened at the victim's house.

aburan28 10y ago

Actually the headline for this should be "Amazon PR team spins disturbing surveillance capabilities via Echo to make it seem like they are fighting for privacy"

throw7 10y ago

This is really hard to support the headline from the story. The artical says Amazon twice declined to hand over Echo data... I'm presuming because the police didn't have a warrant. The article says Amazon has been handed over a warrant (now?)... so... Amazon will or will not refuse to hand over the data now with warrant in hand???

getpost 10y ago

Slightly off topic, but this brings up the issue of whether data maintained using technological means is correct. And how can the correctness be verified or refuted? For example, suppose Amazon does provide data in reply to the warrant. How is anyone sure it's the data from the specified device at the time in question? Database errors happen all the time. It might be possible to use other means to assure that the data is correct, but it's unlikely anyone with the necessary knowledge would be assigned to this task. Similarly, in LA, there are no fare gates at metro train stations. Occasionally police stop people leaving the station to check whether fare is paid by scanning the transit smart card. What if the card malfunctions? What if the scanning device outputs the wrong information? I have no way of contesting or verifying the information on these devices. It would be me, the passenger, held to account, not the infrastructure technology.

supergeek133 10y ago
That's why in serious criminal cases we have trial by jury and not technology. If your only evidence is a 20 second recording from an Echo, you shouldn't be going to trial. Poor DNA evidence/practices have wrongly convicted people, they have also exonerated people that were wrongly convicted.

djrogers 10y ago

How is this any different from a bank refusing to release financial records, or a phone company refusing to release phone records? These both happen all the time in criminal investigations, and I don't see a ton of recommendations to stay away from banks and homes here on HN...

tibarun 10y ago

Amazon pays Guardian for help in PR campaign.

dang 10y ago

This had a major thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13263894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13263894, so by the usual standard this is a dupe, unless it contains significant new information. Since both articles are lifted from The Information's paywalled original, I'm guessing that's unlikely.

hash-set 10y ago

It's creepy how the surveillance state is edging its way into our homes so voluntarily. Look at all the IoT projects with cameras and this Amazon Echo device. All a subpoena away. Oh, and let's not forget "just put all your data in the cloud" and then a court finds that "cloud" is not subject to your personal possessions...