7 ms·

NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

221 points by danso 8y ago

zaroth 8y ago
In a surprise to no one, recording devices installed in users’ homes have recordings used in a court of law against the homeowner. In a surprise to no one, the third party doctrine means a warrant isn’t even required to demand these recordings from the cloud provider. In a surprise to no one, the NSA can intercept these recordings (and associated speech to text transcripts), load all the associated data into their monster correlation engine, mine the shit out of it, and say they didn’t “collect” anything because they haven’t actually put a bag over your head, driven you to a black site, and waterboarded you. Yet.
- walrus01 8y ago
  And people looked at you like you were an absolute raving loon if you tried to explain the architecture of the ECHELON program, 15 years ago. Now who's laughing... I encourage everyone who is not familiar with them to read all of James Bamford's books on the NSA. And Robert Baer's books on the CIA.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    But why make the government pay for it, when users will go on Amazon.com and pay to install their very own personal cloud home listening devices all by themselves?!
    - iknowstuff 8y ago
      They're insignificant in all of this compared to smartphones.
      - 14 8y ago
        This is what I was thinking as well. Slowly creep until they have to power to turn on a persons phone at will to look and listen.
        monotone666 8y ago
        I once drew the ire of a large private security company and could have sworn they had the ability to listen to my cell phone microphone
  - Jaepa 8y ago
    > And people looked at you like you were an absolute raving loon if you tried to explain the architecture of the ECHELON program, 15 years ago. Now who's laughing... I would imagine Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, & the US.
  - arminiusreturns 8y ago
    You get it, but it's sad you get down votes instead of good discussion. Let's also not forget: John Kiriakou, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, William Binney, Daniel Elsberg, James Risen, Ray McGovern, Sibel Edmonds, Michael Scheuer, and many more. Collectively, they point to a much more insidious state of affairs than I think most people want to admit.
- peteretep 8y ago
  Did we read different articles? > recording devices installed in users’ homes have recordings used in a court of law against the homeowner I didn't read that Amazon have said they have recordings of the incident? Did they? It seemed like they "might". Was the alleged murderer the home-owner, or the victims? In the latter, it looks like they've been used to support justice for the homeowners? > the third party doctrine means a warrant isn’t even required The article I read said that a "judge has ordered Amazon to turn over recordings". That sounds a lot like a warrant to me, and if it isn't, it sounds like it isn't only under a technicality of some sort? > the NSA can intercept these recordings I also didn't get that from the article you're replying to?
  - will_brown 8y ago
    >Was the alleged murderer the home-owner, or the victims? It’s funny because the answer to this reveals a lot with respect to OPs comment about “being used against the homeowner in court”. 1. The homeowner was a known drug dealer to police and one of the victims was his girlfriend. (Normally these facts might make the homeowner a suspect) 2. As it turns out (maybe directly related the his reputation with police) he had surveillance cameras, so even without Alexa the video surveillance actually showed the defendant with the women before their death. Not to say OP isn’t right and voice assistant recordings will regularly be used in court against their owners interest, but in this case it only helped and the home owner already had video surveillance.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      How do the particulars of this case have any relevance as to; 1) The implication of widespread proliferation of these types of recording devices 2) The accessibility/retention of the recordings for law enforcement 3) The long-standing legal framework around the third party doctrine and the NSA’s willingness to abuse third-party private data for data mining It smacks of “think of the children!” to talk about what a bad guy they’re using the tech to help catch. Of course the early cases are sympathetic! It’s not hard to see what’s coming when they put large blinking neon signs like this case up for us. It just so happens that the company that makes these devices will be deriving a large portion of its profits in the coming decades from the same government which will very deeply want access to these records. It also just so happens the company that makes these devices has already demonstrated how eager it is to hawk its panopticonic AI to that very same government for the purposes of mass surveillance.
- danso 8y ago
  IANAL but this is a surprise to me. Ignoring the obvious issue of whether Echo actually is continuously recording and storing audio, SCOTUS ruled just a few months ago [0] that police need a warrant to obtain cell phone data, which is a setback to the idea that all digital info sent to the cloud is up for grabs to the U.S. gov. And it would be a surprise to me if the NSA spent its time intentionally and broadly intercepting and analyzing the domestic recordings of the kind described in this case. Not just because it would be illegal, but pointless for their institutional mission, which they seem barely able to manage as is. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-supreme-court-digital-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-suprem...
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Cell-site location data is collected by cell phone companies incidentally but inseparably as a side-effect of using the phone. And using a phone is no longer seen as an optional device to carry around. The Alexa recordings are collected as a primary function of the device purchased and setup at the whim of the owner specifically for the purpose of capturing audio in their own home for advanced processing and analysis by a third party. The precedent you cite is unfortunately not going to protect this data, in my opinion, because the specific rationale the Supreme Court used to start requiring a warrant for cell site data are perfectly avoided in this case. As for the NSA doing things that are illegal or “pointless for their institutional mission”, which also happen to massively infringe on basic human privacy rights,... it would seem from recent history that that is exactly what they are most likely to do.
    - danso 8y ago
      I agree that the SCOTUS case cited is not in itself the fatal blow against third party doctrine. But it's a major step in the courts recognizing that pre-digital doctrines need adaptations/concessions to apply to a digital society. Again, IANAL, but if the third party doctrine includes Alexa requests, then why have police (at least in other jurisdictions) needed search warrants to get account info and content and emails from Facebook/Google? [0] Though I'm probably naive in hoping that there's a conclusive distinction; the third party doctrine would seemingly apply for the U.S. mail, but doesn't seem to. I definitely didn't mean to imply that the NSA is above doing illegal activities. But it seems self-evident that people were very surprised by the Snowden revelations, enough to demand reforms [1] (or at least "gestures", if we want to be cynical). And people would be just as surprised to find out the NSA doing something far more invasive today. Laws and regulations don't mean that illegal activity will cease to exist -- but it makes such activity much more difficult/cumbersome to do, especially on such a wide-scale, without the conspiratorial buy-in from agency managers, leaders, and high-ranking legislators. So I'm not surprised that the NSA has the capability to do massive 1984-like domestic surveillance, but I would be surprised that such a program was approved and implemented. The laws/regulations on paper are what make it possible for anyone to get punished when someone like Snowden whistleblows. [0] https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/unsealed-documents-show-gunmans-girlfriend-deleted-facebook-after-las-vegas-shooting/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/unsealed-docum... [1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-the-nsa-spying-programs-have-changed-since-snowden/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-the-nsa-spyin...
- mtgx 8y ago
  The third party doctrine is such bullshit. People have a (human) right to privacy in their homes. Banks don't get to say the money you put in one of their accounts is "theirs" do they? Why would you not benefit from the same kind of protection for your data? Law enforcement has managed to convince some judges at the right time in history with their twisted logic and unfortunately the case precedent thing makes this a thing that goes on for decades, even though that old ruling is now being applied to orders of magnitude more data on someone compared to the original case. Until this changes just minimize or completely eliminate anything that can both record what you say or do and also send it to someone else's servers. Eventually all humans will have to fight for (I guess new) rights that can protect them against overzealous governments using advertising companies, surveillance powers and artificial intelligence against them. I think the 2020's will be the new 50's in terms of fighting for new rights and against government oppression. I don't expect this to go down very peacefully. It almost never does in such cases.
  - slededit 8y ago
    > Banks don't get to say the money you put in one of their accounts is "theirs" do they? They do. They even give it away to third parties. Legally speaking your bank deposit is a loan to the bank.
    - kibwen 8y ago
      Subject to quite a few legal restrictions, of course.
shakna 8y ago
I still don't understand why this is possible. I've frequently seen the claim that an Echo only records brief snippets, looking for the wake word. If that's so, there's next to nothing for Amazon to hand over.
- themagician 8y ago
  It’s not possible. This is a classic example of the legal system confusing reality with science fiction. You can monitor Echo itself over your network and quickly realize that it’s not sending a constant stream of voice data. For the most part the device is off until it hears its name.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    On the other hand, if the government comes to Amazon with a valid sealed court order, are you willing to bet they'll stand up rather than start streaming audio recordings home? Amazon winning DoD cloud business is actually the smartest thing the US government could do to align interests.
    - peteretep 8y ago
      > a valid sealed court order If the government show up with a valid court order, generally they can do what the hell they want? That's how justice works in a democracy?
      - danso 8y ago
        I mean, yes? The need for a valid court order is so that the executive branch (e.g. law enforcement) can’t unilaterally surveil and detain people. The court makes this decision by looking at the laws, which are passed by the legislative branch. If the elected legislature passes a law that vastly lowers the barrier for govt intrusion, well, it’s not a great situation, but it is possible under democratic principles.
        8y ago
danso 8y ago
I know that this article itself doesn’t have much content but I’m interested in what the police are actually requesting, and what they end up getting. Do they assume/suspect that Echo/Amazon continuously records and logs audio, akin to a security camera? Or do they have evidence that Echo was actually activated around the time of the murders, or afterwards by the suspect himself? I was also interested in this quote: > "I think most people probably don't even realize that Alexa is taking account of what's going on in your house, in addition to responding to your demands and commands," said Albert Scherr, a professor at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. What is it that users don’t realize? Anecdotally, just about everyone I know who has refused to have an Echo do so because they believe Echo is doing far more surreptitious surveillance and analysis, i.e. not just listening for the trigger word. Though I’m sure most users don’t realize that when Alexa does trigger, she sends the audio to the Amazon mothership, which are then stored/analyzed for an indefinite time. Though most people don’t realize the most basic things about data, like how when you friend someone on FB, FB actually stores a log of your friends, and any other kind of stated interaction, such as the users you’ve blocked
- walrus01 8y ago
  > Do they assume/suspect that Echo/Amazon continuously records and logs audio, akin to a security camera? Yes, I think random non-technical homicide detectives might very well assume this. They're fishing for anything they can get, even if it's a 1% chance. Almost certainly the subpoena response from Amazon will be that they are not in possession of a recording.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Is there any suggestion that a system is in place to lie openly and hand over a recording privately? Or is that only for national security cases? If a comment were keeping recordings they weren't allowed to make, and just lied to deny it is there a verification process that could reveal the lie?
- nolok 8y ago
  I sincerely doubt people don't realise that anything after the trigger is sent home, since a "feature" of alexa is that the app let you see each request you made, how alexa answered, and let them know if she got it wrong. I think it's more a case of "don't care" / "don't realize the risks"
wpdev_63 8y ago
This isn't really a shocker. They have been known since 2006[0] that the police(+TLA's) can use your cellphone as a eavesdropping tool. The biggest problem I fear is that this will become socially acceptable in US as it has with the authoritarian gov't in China. [0]:https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdr...
- trhway 8y ago
  Why it may be not socially acceptable yet, it is already socially accepted :). Between smartphone, car computer, video cameras everywhere, license plates readers, credit card records, etc. government has pretty much all the details of my life (in some fusion center by Palantir). Adding smart home, drones and whatever else just incrementally improves the quality of that collection while not changing the already established situation in principle.
  - wpdev_63 8y ago
    I guess it's known in very certain circles on what goes in the 'establishment' but to say that it is now socially acceptable? I doubt it. Actually, after the Snowden revelations, there was a big political uproar and they almost got enough votes to completely defund the NSA[0]. Unfortunately our constitutional lawyer in charge(obama) was able to defeat the bill. While they are collecting everything on everyone pretty much(xkeyscore, prism, turbine etc), there's a good chance that things will change when people are aware of it. As we have the right to choose who leads us. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/07/24/plan-to-defund-nsa-phone-collection-program-has-broad-support-sponsor-says/?utm_term=.d17b142b5efb https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/07...
- wpdev_63 8y ago
  EDIT: Why is my comment being downvoted? And why can't I edit it?
rocky1138 8y ago
Can you replace the link with this one? https://apnews.com/ebe802c103d64412aaef707e8719e946 https://apnews.com/ebe802c103d64412aaef707e8719e946 The existing link is a spamfest.
- cheschire 8y ago
  The existing link is also blocked in Germany. Your link, however, functions.
  - em-bee 8y ago
    rather i guess the site is blocking access from europe because of the GDPR
bob_paulson 8y ago
Where is the limit between the right to privacy and the need to help justice? Is the right to privacy immutable?
Improvotter 8y ago
> Sorry, this content is not available in your region. Aka: "We're not gonna adhere to privacy shit."
- setquk 8y ago
  More: we disrespect your privacy and can’t get away with it there.
- AlexB138 8y ago
  Or "we're not interested in being regulated by a foreign government".
  - ainiriand 8y ago
    Is there such thing as foreign in the internet? Can you choose to just not adhere to a law that protects the users? If the law was unfair it would be fair to resist, though.
    - rock_hard 8y ago
      Fair is a matter of perspective and opinion and not a universal fact though
    - betterunix2 8y ago
      Yes, there is such a thing as "foreign" on the Internet, a fact that has been dramatically demonstrated by China and North Korea, and also less dramatically by America (copyrights) and Europe (copyrights and privacy regulations). It is easy to forget that the Internet is only as international as governments are willing to allow, and that a government can (and some have) disconnect the domestic network in some country from the global Internet.
- chronid 8y ago
  It's more like: "our primary business model is collecting information about you so we can show you targeted ads".
gammateam 8y ago
My company responds to subpoenas with a wiki article on how client side encryption works
- msla 8y ago
  And if the judge is feeling especially generous, they'll respond to you with a Wikipedia article on contempt of court.
  - exolymph 8y ago
    No, because the point of client-side encryption is that the service provider does not have the data to hand over.
    - etskinner 8y ago
      I think the point is, if all they sent was a wiki article, they wouldn't be responding to the spirit of the subpoena. Instead they'd be expected to write up an explanation that they don't keep full data, and they would probably still be required to hand over metadata that might be useful.
      - danso 8y ago
        And to be fair, the original commenter didn’t say that the only thing sent was the wiki article. It might be one of a dozen URLs included in the company’s reply boilerplate.
- jdc 8y ago
  What stops your users from getting subpoenaed via their ISPs?
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Presumably, their users have the right to not incriminate themselves.
PunchTornado 8y ago
I don't see what the problem is here. Amazon is required to just send some files to the court which is fine. It's not like the iphone case where FBI wanted a sort of permanent backdoor that could be used for everyone. If a murder happened in your house, the police should receive your echo logs from amazon.
njn 8y ago
Fuck Amazon
znpy 8y ago
> Sorry, this content is not available in your region.
pasbesoin 8y ago
Somebody or other's rule of action/expectation: If they can, they will. The only brake is significant enough fear of repercussions to themselves. I guess now I should RTFA. But seriously, put a monitoring device in your home ("Smart TV's, too; whatever), and it will be monitored. P.S. I hope I don't sound callous about the particular circumstance. Just, from an HN perspective, I think of more and ubiquitous technological oversight. And when I think e.g. of insurance companies measuring every last thing I do...

221 points by danso 8y ago

In a surprise to no one, recording devices installed in users’ homes have recordings used in a court of law against the homeowner. In a surprise to no one, the third party doctrine means a warrant isn’t even required to demand these recordings from the cloud provider. In a surprise to no one, the NSA can intercept these recordings (and associated speech to text transcripts), load all the associated data into their monster correlation engine, mine the shit out of it, and say they didn’t “collect” anything because they haven’t actually put a bag over your head, driven you to a black site, and waterboarded you. Yet.

walrus01 8y ago
And people looked at you like you were an absolute raving loon if you tried to explain the architecture of the ECHELON program, 15 years ago. Now who's laughing... I encourage everyone who is not familiar with them to read all of James Bamford's books on the NSA. And Robert Baer's books on the CIA.
- zaroth 8y ago
  But why make the government pay for it, when users will go on Amazon.com and pay to install their very own personal cloud home listening devices all by themselves?!
  - iknowstuff 8y ago
    They're insignificant in all of this compared to smartphones.
    - 14 8y ago
      This is what I was thinking as well. Slowly creep until they have to power to turn on a persons phone at will to look and listen.
      - monotone666 8y ago
        I once drew the ire of a large private security company and could have sworn they had the ability to listen to my cell phone microphone
- Jaepa 8y ago
  > And people looked at you like you were an absolute raving loon if you tried to explain the architecture of the ECHELON program, 15 years ago. Now who's laughing... I would imagine Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, & the US.
- arminiusreturns 8y ago
  You get it, but it's sad you get down votes instead of good discussion. Let's also not forget: John Kiriakou, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, William Binney, Daniel Elsberg, James Risen, Ray McGovern, Sibel Edmonds, Michael Scheuer, and many more. Collectively, they point to a much more insidious state of affairs than I think most people want to admit.
peteretep 8y ago
Did we read different articles? > recording devices installed in users’ homes have recordings used in a court of law against the homeowner I didn't read that Amazon have said they have recordings of the incident? Did they? It seemed like they "might". Was the alleged murderer the home-owner, or the victims? In the latter, it looks like they've been used to support justice for the homeowners? > the third party doctrine means a warrant isn’t even required The article I read said that a "judge has ordered Amazon to turn over recordings". That sounds a lot like a warrant to me, and if it isn't, it sounds like it isn't only under a technicality of some sort? > the NSA can intercept these recordings I also didn't get that from the article you're replying to?
- will_brown 8y ago
  >Was the alleged murderer the home-owner, or the victims? It’s funny because the answer to this reveals a lot with respect to OPs comment about “being used against the homeowner in court”. 1. The homeowner was a known drug dealer to police and one of the victims was his girlfriend. (Normally these facts might make the homeowner a suspect) 2. As it turns out (maybe directly related the his reputation with police) he had surveillance cameras, so even without Alexa the video surveillance actually showed the defendant with the women before their death. Not to say OP isn’t right and voice assistant recordings will regularly be used in court against their owners interest, but in this case it only helped and the home owner already had video surveillance.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    How do the particulars of this case have any relevance as to; 1) The implication of widespread proliferation of these types of recording devices 2) The accessibility/retention of the recordings for law enforcement 3) The long-standing legal framework around the third party doctrine and the NSA’s willingness to abuse third-party private data for data mining It smacks of “think of the children!” to talk about what a bad guy they’re using the tech to help catch. Of course the early cases are sympathetic! It’s not hard to see what’s coming when they put large blinking neon signs like this case up for us. It just so happens that the company that makes these devices will be deriving a large portion of its profits in the coming decades from the same government which will very deeply want access to these records. It also just so happens the company that makes these devices has already demonstrated how eager it is to hawk its panopticonic AI to that very same government for the purposes of mass surveillance.
danso 8y ago
IANAL but this is a surprise to me. Ignoring the obvious issue of whether Echo actually is continuously recording and storing audio, SCOTUS ruled just a few months ago [0] that police need a warrant to obtain cell phone data, which is a setback to the idea that all digital info sent to the cloud is up for grabs to the U.S. gov. And it would be a surprise to me if the NSA spent its time intentionally and broadly intercepting and analyzing the domestic recordings of the kind described in this case. Not just because it would be illegal, but pointless for their institutional mission, which they seem barely able to manage as is. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-supreme-court-digital-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-suprem...
- zaroth 8y ago
  Cell-site location data is collected by cell phone companies incidentally but inseparably as a side-effect of using the phone. And using a phone is no longer seen as an optional device to carry around. The Alexa recordings are collected as a primary function of the device purchased and setup at the whim of the owner specifically for the purpose of capturing audio in their own home for advanced processing and analysis by a third party. The precedent you cite is unfortunately not going to protect this data, in my opinion, because the specific rationale the Supreme Court used to start requiring a warrant for cell site data are perfectly avoided in this case. As for the NSA doing things that are illegal or “pointless for their institutional mission”, which also happen to massively infringe on basic human privacy rights,... it would seem from recent history that that is exactly what they are most likely to do.
  - danso 8y ago
    I agree that the SCOTUS case cited is not in itself the fatal blow against third party doctrine. But it's a major step in the courts recognizing that pre-digital doctrines need adaptations/concessions to apply to a digital society. Again, IANAL, but if the third party doctrine includes Alexa requests, then why have police (at least in other jurisdictions) needed search warrants to get account info and content and emails from Facebook/Google? [0] Though I'm probably naive in hoping that there's a conclusive distinction; the third party doctrine would seemingly apply for the U.S. mail, but doesn't seem to. I definitely didn't mean to imply that the NSA is above doing illegal activities. But it seems self-evident that people were very surprised by the Snowden revelations, enough to demand reforms [1] (or at least "gestures", if we want to be cynical). And people would be just as surprised to find out the NSA doing something far more invasive today. Laws and regulations don't mean that illegal activity will cease to exist -- but it makes such activity much more difficult/cumbersome to do, especially on such a wide-scale, without the conspiratorial buy-in from agency managers, leaders, and high-ranking legislators. So I'm not surprised that the NSA has the capability to do massive 1984-like domestic surveillance, but I would be surprised that such a program was approved and implemented. The laws/regulations on paper are what make it possible for anyone to get punished when someone like Snowden whistleblows. [0] https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/unsealed-documents-show-gunmans-girlfriend-deleted-facebook-after-las-vegas-shooting/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/unsealed-docum... [1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-the-nsa-spying-programs-have-changed-since-snowden/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-the-nsa-spyin...
mtgx 8y ago
The third party doctrine is such bullshit. People have a (human) right to privacy in their homes. Banks don't get to say the money you put in one of their accounts is "theirs" do they? Why would you not benefit from the same kind of protection for your data? Law enforcement has managed to convince some judges at the right time in history with their twisted logic and unfortunately the case precedent thing makes this a thing that goes on for decades, even though that old ruling is now being applied to orders of magnitude more data on someone compared to the original case. Until this changes just minimize or completely eliminate anything that can both record what you say or do and also send it to someone else's servers. Eventually all humans will have to fight for (I guess new) rights that can protect them against overzealous governments using advertising companies, surveillance powers and artificial intelligence against them. I think the 2020's will be the new 50's in terms of fighting for new rights and against government oppression. I don't expect this to go down very peacefully. It almost never does in such cases.
- slededit 8y ago
  > Banks don't get to say the money you put in one of their accounts is "theirs" do they? They do. They even give it away to third parties. Legally speaking your bank deposit is a loan to the bank.
  - kibwen 8y ago
    Subject to quite a few legal restrictions, of course.

shakna 8y ago

I still don't understand why this is possible. I've frequently seen the claim that an Echo only records brief snippets, looking for the wake word. If that's so, there's next to nothing for Amazon to hand over.

themagician 8y ago
It’s not possible. This is a classic example of the legal system confusing reality with science fiction. You can monitor Echo itself over your network and quickly realize that it’s not sending a constant stream of voice data. For the most part the device is off until it hears its name.
- ethbro 8y ago
  On the other hand, if the government comes to Amazon with a valid sealed court order, are you willing to bet they'll stand up rather than start streaming audio recordings home? Amazon winning DoD cloud business is actually the smartest thing the US government could do to align interests.
  - peteretep 8y ago
    > a valid sealed court order If the government show up with a valid court order, generally they can do what the hell they want? That's how justice works in a democracy?
    - danso 8y ago
      I mean, yes? The need for a valid court order is so that the executive branch (e.g. law enforcement) can’t unilaterally surveil and detain people. The court makes this decision by looking at the laws, which are passed by the legislative branch. If the elected legislature passes a law that vastly lowers the barrier for govt intrusion, well, it’s not a great situation, but it is possible under democratic principles.
      - 8y ago

danso 8y ago

I know that this article itself doesn’t have much content but I’m interested in what the police are actually requesting, and what they end up getting. Do they assume/suspect that Echo/Amazon continuously records and logs audio, akin to a security camera? Or do they have evidence that Echo was actually activated around the time of the murders, or afterwards by the suspect himself? I was also interested in this quote: > "I think most people probably don't even realize that Alexa is taking account of what's going on in your house, in addition to responding to your demands and commands," said Albert Scherr, a professor at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. What is it that users don’t realize? Anecdotally, just about everyone I know who has refused to have an Echo do so because they believe Echo is doing far more surreptitious surveillance and analysis, i.e. not just listening for the trigger word. Though I’m sure most users don’t realize that when Alexa does trigger, she sends the audio to the Amazon mothership, which are then stored/analyzed for an indefinite time. Though most people don’t realize the most basic things about data, like how when you friend someone on FB, FB actually stores a log of your friends, and any other kind of stated interaction, such as the users you’ve blocked

walrus01 8y ago
> Do they assume/suspect that Echo/Amazon continuously records and logs audio, akin to a security camera? Yes, I think random non-technical homicide detectives might very well assume this. They're fishing for anything they can get, even if it's a 1% chance. Almost certainly the subpoena response from Amazon will be that they are not in possession of a recording.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Is there any suggestion that a system is in place to lie openly and hand over a recording privately? Or is that only for national security cases? If a comment were keeping recordings they weren't allowed to make, and just lied to deny it is there a verification process that could reveal the lie?
nolok 8y ago
I sincerely doubt people don't realise that anything after the trigger is sent home, since a "feature" of alexa is that the app let you see each request you made, how alexa answered, and let them know if she got it wrong. I think it's more a case of "don't care" / "don't realize the risks"

wpdev_63 8y ago

This isn't really a shocker. They have been known since 2006[0] that the police(+TLA's) can use your cellphone as a eavesdropping tool. The biggest problem I fear is that this will become socially acceptable in US as it has with the authoritarian gov't in China. [0]:https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdr...

trhway 8y ago
Why it may be not socially acceptable yet, it is already socially accepted :). Between smartphone, car computer, video cameras everywhere, license plates readers, credit card records, etc. government has pretty much all the details of my life (in some fusion center by Palantir). Adding smart home, drones and whatever else just incrementally improves the quality of that collection while not changing the already established situation in principle.
- wpdev_63 8y ago
  I guess it's known in very certain circles on what goes in the 'establishment' but to say that it is now socially acceptable? I doubt it. Actually, after the Snowden revelations, there was a big political uproar and they almost got enough votes to completely defund the NSA[0]. Unfortunately our constitutional lawyer in charge(obama) was able to defeat the bill. While they are collecting everything on everyone pretty much(xkeyscore, prism, turbine etc), there's a good chance that things will change when people are aware of it. As we have the right to choose who leads us. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/07/24/plan-to-defund-nsa-phone-collection-program-has-broad-support-sponsor-says/?utm_term=.d17b142b5efb https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/07...
wpdev_63 8y ago
EDIT: Why is my comment being downvoted? And why can't I edit it?

rocky1138 8y ago

Can you replace the link with this one? https://apnews.com/ebe802c103d64412aaef707e8719e946 https://apnews.com/ebe802c103d64412aaef707e8719e946 The existing link is a spamfest.

cheschire 8y ago
The existing link is also blocked in Germany. Your link, however, functions.
- em-bee 8y ago
  rather i guess the site is blocking access from europe because of the GDPR

bob_paulson 8y ago

Where is the limit between the right to privacy and the need to help justice? Is the right to privacy immutable?

Improvotter 8y ago

> Sorry, this content is not available in your region. Aka: "We're not gonna adhere to privacy shit."

setquk 8y ago
More: we disrespect your privacy and can’t get away with it there.
AlexB138 8y ago
Or "we're not interested in being regulated by a foreign government".
- ainiriand 8y ago
  Is there such thing as foreign in the internet? Can you choose to just not adhere to a law that protects the users? If the law was unfair it would be fair to resist, though.
  - rock_hard 8y ago
    Fair is a matter of perspective and opinion and not a universal fact though
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    Yes, there is such a thing as "foreign" on the Internet, a fact that has been dramatically demonstrated by China and North Korea, and also less dramatically by America (copyrights) and Europe (copyrights and privacy regulations). It is easy to forget that the Internet is only as international as governments are willing to allow, and that a government can (and some have) disconnect the domestic network in some country from the global Internet.
chronid 8y ago
It's more like: "our primary business model is collecting information about you so we can show you targeted ads".

gammateam 8y ago

My company responds to subpoenas with a wiki article on how client side encryption works

msla 8y ago
And if the judge is feeling especially generous, they'll respond to you with a Wikipedia article on contempt of court.
- exolymph 8y ago
  No, because the point of client-side encryption is that the service provider does not have the data to hand over.
  - etskinner 8y ago
    I think the point is, if all they sent was a wiki article, they wouldn't be responding to the spirit of the subpoena. Instead they'd be expected to write up an explanation that they don't keep full data, and they would probably still be required to hand over metadata that might be useful.
    - danso 8y ago
      And to be fair, the original commenter didn’t say that the only thing sent was the wiki article. It might be one of a dozen URLs included in the company’s reply boilerplate.
jdc 8y ago
What stops your users from getting subpoenaed via their ISPs?
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Presumably, their users have the right to not incriminate themselves.

PunchTornado 8y ago

I don't see what the problem is here. Amazon is required to just send some files to the court which is fine. It's not like the iphone case where FBI wanted a sort of permanent backdoor that could be used for everyone. If a murder happened in your house, the police should receive your echo logs from amazon.

njn 8y ago

Fuck Amazon

znpy 8y ago

> Sorry, this content is not available in your region.

pasbesoin 8y ago

Somebody or other's rule of action/expectation: If they can, they will. The only brake is significant enough fear of repercussions to themselves. I guess now I should RTFA. But seriously, put a monitoring device in your home ("Smart TV's, too; whatever), and it will be monitored. P.S. I hope I don't sound callous about the particular circumstance. Just, from an HN perspective, I think of more and ubiquitous technological oversight. And when I think e.g. of insurance companies measuring every last thing I do...