73 ms·
Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents
- gtirloni 10y ago> after the defendant consented
- andrewingram 10y agoFeels a bit weird. Why does a defendant consenting change anything? Presumably if they were asleep as claimed, they're basically consenting to something that's unrelated to themselves.
- clarkevans 10y agoEven if they were sound asleep; what Echo recorded may be incredibly damning - a muffled voice, screams, no evidence of someone sleeping nor of an intruder, yet enough to pull a Jury's emotions that a conviction is needed and the death penalty is merited.
- waisbrot 10y agoYes, this sounds like agreeing to a police interview without your lawyer present -- there's almost no chance that it will help you (are they going to hear "Alexa, tell this person who is not James to stop murdering me"?) and basically any audio they hear that's not someone else confessing to the crime can be used against him in court.
- SuperGent 10y agoThat was my first thought. Why should the defendant have a say in what evidence can be collected? Did the Feds ask if they could take DNA samples from the scene, for example?
- sleepychu 10y agoYou could allow the police to do that without a warrant, if you wanted to. Amazon doesn't need to argue whether the prosecution have a legitimate order to seize the data if the 'owner' is willing to turn it over.
- tbcj 10y agoIn this case, the defendant may have a say only because Amazon is claiming there is standing to enforce the defendant's First Amendment rights - the so-called chilling effect. With the defendant consenting, Amazon's standing for litigating this issue becomes more fraught.
- maxerickson 10y agoIn this case it is because Amazon resisted the request from the legal system for the data. The owner of the device giving consent to Amazon to release the data avoids having to play out the legal process of obtaining the data (it's likely the request would eventually have succeeded).
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 10y agoBut how long before lack of consent is considered incriminating? There are also many different jurisdictions which don't have 5th amendment style protections.
- cmdrfred 10y agoWouldn't a jurisdiction without 5th amendment protections be unconstitutional?
- d3ckard 10y agoWe do not all live in the USA.
- cmdrfred 10y agoThis case does though and considering its a 5th amendment case I'm not sure how it would be relevant internationally.
- jMyles 10y agoThe basis premises (privacy amidst a sea of devices which record at various times and save these recordings off-site) are universal.
- davrosthedalek 10y agoMost jurisdictions have similar provisions. If not, the defendant is screwed anyway.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- adrianN 10y agoDepends on the constitution.
- IncRnd 10y agoIt will be a long time in the jurisdiction of this case before constitutional protection against self-incrimination is stripped.
- BearGoesChirp 10y agoThe power difference between the state and an individual invalidates any consent.
- acomar 10y agoWhy did the defendant's lawyer allow this? I don't understand how this could possibly help the defense.
- CPLX 10y agoWell at least one explanation is that the defendant is actually innocent, and thus isn't worried it will be incriminating. Another explanation is the defense is sufficiently convinced that nothing conclusive will be found anyways, and think that acting as if they have nothing to hide will make them look more innocent.
- HappyTypist 10y agoMost likely Amazo Alan already allowed the defendant to review the data and they've found nothing useful.
- koolba 10y agoThis should be a lesson to people who don't understand the distinction between "can't" and "won't". If you're running things yourself and control the encryption keys required to access your data, then your service provider can't be compelled to release your data as it's not possible[1][2]. If you're delegating all of that to your service provider and they have access to the raw data, then you are putting all your trust in them to protect your data and prevent it's release. And that has to cover everything from hackers, to snooping employees, to the Feds. [1]: Kind of ... I don't recall the Apple/FBI case going to court for a final resolution so it's possible they can compel the service provider to hack you to get the keys but at least they can't get it directly. [2]: And obviously they can always come after you with a court order or rubber hose (or both).
- shshhdhs 10y agoThey can only reveal voice data IF the victim said "Alexa" when the crime was taking place. If the victim didn't say "Alexa" that day, then there's nothing to reveal. Your example about encryption doesn't make sense in the context of the Echo.
- IncRnd 10y agoFalse Positives. "I'll Let Some" one else discuss how false positives can affect detection.
- npongratz 10y agoI'm not certain there exists nothing to reveal. Is there a technical limitation of the system that prevents or avoids recording of "non-'Alexa'" audio? Or do I just trust Amazon when they say their alway-on device only records when triggered with the magic word? As I think about it, I'd ask the same regarding the voice-controllable phone in my pocket. FWIW, I don't trust the devices, because their operations are out of any consumer's ability to control them, but maybe I'm missing something about their technical limitations that would work in my favor.
- joezydeco 10y ago
- phantarch 10y agoHow is echo audio data substantially different than something like a tape recorder that was live in the man's home? What about a cell phone that was on a call at the time of the alleged murder? I definitely understand wanting to ensure reasonable privacy for users, but to me it feels an awful lot of a stretch to say that the echo is off-limits in this case.
- dagw 10y agoI suspect that it is as much about PR as anything else. Amazon probably has no qualms handing over the data per se. But they also realize that doing so without first putting up a 'fight' would look very bad.
- andrepd 10y agoBut of course. Corporations are amoral entities. They do whatever it is that they calculate to yield the highest expected profit. They will do good things only insofar as it happens to coincide with what's most profitable (as is the case). If the most profitable course of action was to murder children and they could do it without hurting profits via breaking the law or getting bad PR, they would do it (as at any rate they do in places where committing atrocities is the unpunished, most profitable course of action).
- maxerickson 10y agoWhere the data is stored is a fundamental difference. That was one of Amazon's primary arguments, that they had not received a warrant valid in a relevant jurisdiction.
- phantarch 10y agoInteresting, thanks for letting me know. Jurisdiction seems like a concept that is going to change a lot in the next decade if that's the basis for argument.
- maxerickson 10y ago
- kaino128 10y agoCan you call emergency services via Amazon Echo? I've read on a car forum I'm part of about someone who was working on their vehicle without jack stands and got trapped when their jack slipped. They used Siri to call their wife and jack the car back up. They probably would have died without it. I can easily forsee a future where consumers ask companies for voice assistants that turn on automatically when they detect duress (not needing to say "Alexa ...") before one where governments actually compel product manufacturers to do this.
- skocznymroczny 10y agoFor all you know, it could be recording all the time, and since it's a closed device, you can't prove otherwise.
- Klathmon 10y agoYes and for all you know that table you bought could include a large battery, LTE receiver, and a microphone and could be recording your every sound as well. There's a limit to how much paranoia is warranted, and in this case I'm firmly in the "it's not" column. Yes, it could be recording your every sound for months on end and uploading it to evil amazon, but not only would they be in some hot water legally in some areas, but the media would have a fucking field day with it, and for what gain? To be able to listen in on your conversations? And if you want to argue that it could be remotely updated to target you to always record that data, you could always be targeted by inserting a microphone into anything else of yours (good 'ole bugs). You don't need to like them, you don't need to own them, and you don't need to be somewhere that has them, but some of us see utility in devices like this. And to me it's well worth the trade off that my recordings could be used in a court of law when requested with a warrant and I agreed to it.
- shostack 10y agoThe comparison between a bugged table and a device whose primary purpose is to always be listening to you is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Amazon provides cloud storage and processing to the web. Given their history of relatively ruthless (if strategically smart) business moves, I don't think it is unreasonable to consider that they could store this data for use down the line or do so at government request. This is all software based permissions that seem to be one invisible server side tweak away from becoming an always recording (not just listening for a wake word) device. I got an Amazon Tap because it required a button push to record. They just enabled the option for always listening just like the echo. In theory I control it, but clearly I do not in practice.
- tribune 10y agoI own an Echo and this is part of the reason it now sits unplugged. To be honest, it doesn't provide enough value for me to consider potentially compromising the privacy of my home.
- danielsamuels 10y agoWithout trying being rude, surely this was obvious before you purchased it?
- josefresco 10y agoAlso, your phone is probably already listening to you - and maybe your cable box.
- diminoten 10y agoHell, most speakers can conceivably be used to record audio.
- YCode 10y agoBruce Schneier wrote a great essay on this topic: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2008/01/the_psychology_of_se.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2008/01/the_psychol... In short, we "feel" security more than we reason about it and once a risk has been personified we lend a lot more weight to it.
- CPLX 10y agoThat is a really interesting link.
- shshhdhs 10y agoMentioned this in another comment, but they can only reveal voice data IF the victim said "Alexa" when the crime was taking place. If the victim didn't say "Alexa" that day, then there's nothing to reveal.
- dade_ 10y agoAt this point I assume they have a warrant, so I don't understand what the problem is. People should assume their devices can and will be used against them. A much more tricky conversation is when a friend of mine discovered that fragments of his a session with his psychologist recorded by his Android Wear watch.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- shostack 10y agoCan you share more details? How did they discover it?
- npongratz 10y agoNot OP, but I'd guess through Google's Voice & Audio Activity page [0]. Mine happens to be littered with expletives directed at Google, from self-psychotherapy when my pocket computer false-positives my voice, or most surprisingly and infuriatingly, silence. [0] https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?utm_source=help&restrict=vaa https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?utm_source=help&res...
- dade_ 10y agoI don't have Android Wear. But as he explained it he went to the Google personal data page that shows you the data they've collected on you and said there were audio recordings and transcripts with words and phrases that seemed odd but then he realized where he said them.
- njharman 10y ago> people should assume What I assume is that the bill of rights will not be subverted just because I use technology. The right to not be subject to search and right to not self incrimate.
- dade_ 10y agoIt's a nice sentiment and sounds like a good legal argument. However, your constitution doesn't do me any good and doesn't help you with foreign states. Five Eyes has been a legal work around for years so keep fighting the good fight, but in the meantime I will keep expecting the best and assuming the worst.
- heheocoenev 10y agoSeriously, screw google home and Amazon echo. If I wanted a wiretap, I'd go to FISA court.
- rblatz 10y agoOdds are you already carry one around with you every where you go.
- orless 10y ago> Amazon has agreed to hand over data from an Amazon Echo that may have been operating as an alleged murder took place, after the defendant consented. A much more interesting question is if Amazon would have released the data without the defendants conset.
- lucaspiller 10y agoWell Amazon actually refused at first, even when presented with warrants requesting the data, saying that they didn't see how the data would be relevant. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39063113 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39063113
- orless 10y agoI know that, I'm just pointing out that handing the data with persons consent is absolutely nothing extraordinary. Many people (also in this thread) are worried and unplug Alexa because of these news. Some accuse Amazon of putting up a fight for PR only. From my point of view, these news add nothing substantial to the Alexa customer privacy debate. It is unclear if Amazon would have (finally) handed the data over without customers consent. It is unclear how far would Amazon go fighting for customer privacy.
- vidarh 10y agoIt's newsworthy in this case because of the initial refusal. Not because it adds anything substantial to the privacy debate, but because it means we won't get to see if their argument would be held up by the court.
- wyldfire 10y agoThis is a non-issue. The audio Amazon receives is from only-just-barely-before the wakeword up to and through the command or timeout expiration. Yes, it's possible that the defendants cat meowed right before the murder and it sounded like "Alexa". But it seems incredibly unlikely. Prosecutors are just trying to cover every base but the likelihood that this will yield anything is very low.
- vidarh 10y agoJust a few minutes ago, my Alexa triggered on a phone conversation someone was having across the room. It happens fairly regularly. While I agree it's unlikely to have caught any specific incident, do this often enough and sooner or later something will show up - the recognition is not particularly precise.
- andrepd 10y ago> The audio Amazon receives is from only-just-barely-before the wakeword up to and through the command or timeout expiration. I wonder, how on earth do you know that, that you are able to dismiss it with such confidence as a non-issue. That's the problem with proprietary systems (proprietary always-on microphones at that). I would be surprised if they weren't actually listening and analysing and storing data from the microphone feed at all times.
- danielvf 10y agoYou can just watch the network traffic from the device to see when it is streaming audio. Now this obviously doesn't rule out the device saving stuff locally, but plenty of people have verified that it does generally only send lots of data to the server when you have just asked it to wake up.
- jamornh 10y agoAlthough that does not rule out the possibility that it stores data locally and only transmit the recorded payload (since the time of last transmission) with the next legitimate payload when the wake word is spoken. Not saying that they do though since if they were discovered to be doing that, it's way too damaging for Amazon's reputation for it to be worth going through the trouble.
- ForHackernews 10y agoI thought Amazon claimed this was impossible and they didn't have this audio?
- rrajdev 10y agohttp://krishna-kanaiya-photos-images.blogspot.com/2017/02/happy-holi-2017.html http://krishna-kanaiya-photos-images.blogspot.com/2017/02/ha...
- draw_down 10y agoI haven't seen a compelling use case for these things yet, including visiting the homes of people who own one. But I sure have seen a lot of deal-breakers.
- _rpd 10y agoI know someone who is smart and reasonably concerned about privacy issues, but she loves the thing - uses it instead of a shopping list. I was quite surprised that she would compromise for such a trivial convenience, but it made me revise the likelihood that they'll be more widely adopted.
- sumitgt 10y agoIf the defendant consented, couldn't they just log into their own account and get the audio? In the app, you can hear back all the queries you made to Alexa.