4 ms·

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 refuse

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."
- zepho 10y ago
  Amazon said will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on it. If my reading of this is correct, seems like all Amazon is really saying here is they're refusing to hand over the data until they're "properly served" the warrant. The Guardian article did mention that "Arkansas police issued a warrant to Amazon to turn over recordings" but as IANAL it's unclear to me whether or not that's the same as actually serving the warrant, legally speaking. Is "issuing" a warrant the same as "serving" it?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    My non-lawyerly speculation is that Amazon doesn't agree that they are under the jurisdiction of the court that issued the warrant. Like is discussed here: http://volokh.com/2010/01/08/does-the-fourth-amendment-allow-extraterritorial-state-search-warrants/ http://volokh.com/2010/01/08/does-the-fourth-amendment-allow...
TallGuyShort 10y ago
That still reflects positively on Amazon, though. It protects the innocent consumers AND Amazon if they don't build mass surveillance into their device to begin with. Makes me wish more tech companies were building end-to-end security into their platforms.
iak8god 10y ago
But they do have recordings of everything said to Alexa ("Alexa, how fast will a body decompose in a hot tub?"), and potentially other recordings following false positives for "Alexa", as the article mentions: "...the device is also occasionally accidentally activated, through similar sounds..." I used to have Google's voice search on my phone, and found it interesting that they store your recordings indefinitely. You can listen to your own voice searches: https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa. It was also interesting that they include what was said in the few seconds preceding the wake word ("OK Google").
- toxican 10y ago
  Looked at mine and most of it is mundane/useless stuff like "open Spotify", "How many ounces in 13 lbs", etc. But there are some "text so and so: hey meet me wherever" type recordings...I find that little concerning, but not entirely unexpected. I like that there's an option to delete all of that info, but is it -really- deleted? Or just hidden from my view and kept on Google's servers and still associated with my account?
  - iak8god 10y ago
    I just assume, unless they super-duper promise to truly purge it, that Google is hanging on to every bit.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- supergeek133 10y ago
  Right, and the police asked for this data on the off chance it recorded something useful during this period. They aren't assuming Amazon holds everything said in proximity of the device.

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."
zepho 10y ago
Amazon said will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on it. If my reading of this is correct, seems like all Amazon is really saying here is they're refusing to hand over the data until they're "properly served" the warrant. The Guardian article did mention that "Arkansas police issued a warrant to Amazon to turn over recordings" but as IANAL it's unclear to me whether or not that's the same as actually serving the warrant, legally speaking. Is "issuing" a warrant the same as "serving" it?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  My non-lawyerly speculation is that Amazon doesn't agree that they are under the jurisdiction of the court that issued the warrant. Like is discussed here: http://volokh.com/2010/01/08/does-the-fourth-amendment-allow-extraterritorial-state-search-warrants/ http://volokh.com/2010/01/08/does-the-fourth-amendment-allow...

TallGuyShort 10y ago

That still reflects positively on Amazon, though. It protects the innocent consumers AND Amazon if they don't build mass surveillance into their device to begin with. Makes me wish more tech companies were building end-to-end security into their platforms.

iak8god 10y ago

But they do have recordings of everything said to Alexa ("Alexa, how fast will a body decompose in a hot tub?"), and potentially other recordings following false positives for "Alexa", as the article mentions: "...the device is also occasionally accidentally activated, through similar sounds..." I used to have Google's voice search on my phone, and found it interesting that they store your recordings indefinitely. You can listen to your own voice searches: https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa. It was also interesting that they include what was said in the few seconds preceding the wake word ("OK Google").

toxican 10y ago
Looked at mine and most of it is mundane/useless stuff like "open Spotify", "How many ounces in 13 lbs", etc. But there are some "text so and so: hey meet me wherever" type recordings...I find that little concerning, but not entirely unexpected. I like that there's an option to delete all of that info, but is it -really- deleted? Or just hidden from my view and kept on Google's servers and still associated with my account?
- iak8god 10y ago
  I just assume, unless they super-duper promise to truly purge it, that Google is hanging on to every bit.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
supergeek133 10y ago
Right, and the police asked for this data on the off chance it recorded something useful during this period. They aren't assuming Amazon holds everything said in proximity of the device.