4 ms·

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

by 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.

by zaroth 8y ago

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.