Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 190 posts

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

#101

Post by jpitz »

superkuh wrote: post #10

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 , 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 fo…

I wonder what the market is for a utility usage randomizer that fuzzes this data?

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

#102

Post by jgrahamc »

superkuh wrote: post #10

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 , 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 fo…

When I was a student this murder happened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_McLean One important piece of evidence was the record of the number of bus tickets sold at the time/place Tanner said he got the bus (there was also a witness that said he was alone). A single ticket was sold, not two he had claimed.

That was 1991.

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

#103

Post by iak8god »

droithomme wrote: post #75

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 re…

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. It was also interesting that they include what was said in the few seconds preceding the wake word ("OK Google").

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

#104

Post by atmosx »

zubspace wrote: post #11

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…

> 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?

Why don't you take the advice from someone who knows what he is talking about. If you're in on a hurry make sure you see part two:

Part one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= interrogation (Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defence attorney)

Part two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE (Mr. George Bruch police officer, years of experienced in suspect interviews for the police and US navy.)

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

#105

Post by malka »

inestyne wrote: post #81
fixermark wrote: post #31

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…

Same logic used in the Salem witch trials. You ever wonder why The Right to Be Silent is the first right mentioned in Miranda? Our entire criminal justice system is rooted is this concept. You have to be proven guilty and the state has to provide probable cause to search or seize. Eric Schmidt is as biased on this subject as you can get, he profits from our data.

> Eric Schmidt is as biased on this subject as you can get, he profits from our data.

This. Eric Schmidt should release its own full dataset to show us that he thinks this is true. Unless he is doing things he should not be doing in the first place ?

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

#106

Post by infogulch »

maxerickson wrote: post #84
droithomme wrote: post #75

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 re…

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, cou…

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.

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

#107

Post by marcosdumay »

ben_w wrote: post #77
falcolas wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laser microphones at least require you to be targeted prior to the warrant, and typically require someone on the other end. They can't retroactively request data from a laser microphone attached to most US households.

Given the cost of laser diodes is now pennies, how much would it cost to target every window in a city?

You still have to distribute and read those sensors.

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

#108

Post by ttmb »

inestyne wrote: post #81
fixermark wrote: post #31

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…

Same logic used in the Salem witch trials. You ever wonder why The Right to Be Silent is the first right mentioned in Miranda? Our entire criminal justice system is rooted is this concept. You have to be proven guilty and the state has to provide probable cause to search or seize. Eric Schmidt is as biased on this subject as you can get, he profits from our data.

The full context of that Schmidt quote was that he was warning people that whatever they do, the government has legal (or as it turned out, extra-legal) ways to find out.

"the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we’re all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."

That seems like a good warning, hardly evidence of some nefarious bias.

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

#109

Post by toxican »

iak8god wrote: post #103
droithomme wrote: post #75

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 re…

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. Yo…

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?

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

#110

Post by fixermark »

chronial wrote: post #79
fixermark wrote: post #31

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…

> […] that if you're going to take up murder as a hobby […] and right there is the problem. Nowhere in the article does it say that anybody has committed a murder. You are not proposing to strip privacy away from a criminal, but from a person that is suspected of a crime and might just be completely innocent. That leads to stripping privacy away from everybody.

> Nowhere in the article does it say that anybody has committed a murder.

Article headline: Amazon refuses to let police access US murder suspect's Echo recordings.

If your point is that the suspect is not a proven murderer, then yes, of course I was speaking loosely and not adhering to the legal definition of innocence until proven guilty. But in point of fact, yes, we do strip some privacy away from murder suspects when suspcicion has justified a warrant or subpoena. It's quite necessary in investigating a murder to do so, and we generally have no issue with detectives asking a person's friends, employers, etc. about their activities on and about the night of a heinous crime.

The question of interest here is whether your Alexa logs should be considered "Something you told a friend" or "Something you told a lawyer / priest / spouse." The question of whether police are allowed to pry into a murder suspect's private life, indirectly, with a warrant when they are investigating a murder is well-settled common law.

Post reply on HN