Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

121–130 of 190 posts

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

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the police stands in front of my house with a warrant to search my belongings, can I refuse that? Yes, if your legal team denies it as overly broad. They can also file an injunction. This is why you call a lawyer as soon as the police arrive w/ a warrant or ask you questions. > Does it make sense if I have nothing to hide? Yes. Because you value your privacy of hobbies and speech. > I have nothing to hide. The a…

Do you have a citation for the 3 times a day figure? I'm not disagreeing because I belive it's true. I'd just like to see some real data.

I don't have a citation, but I think the CATO institute put it at 7 felonies a day.

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

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tell when someone's home or not from utility usage.

Timers and automation are a thing.

Circumvention is not the solution. It doesn't solve the problem for Average Joe.

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

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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."

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

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea Very much agree, because there's a difference between being "innocent" and actually innocent. Only the former matters, it's subjective (jury/judge) and unknown to everyone but you, ex ante. Sometimes the police are more invested in finding a criminal rather than the criminal.

Usually a warrant will only last a short time and the issuer must name a specific thing they are looking for. In this case it's clear that they only need to provide the data for a specific person. I also believe that Amazon could provide that data alone. So what makes them refuse?

Because if they don't, I'll tell all my friends that Alexa is being used to monitor their speech for law enforcement, and to not say anything incriminating around one.

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

#125
post #65

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…

I disagree as there is a pretty broad spectrum of activities that you might not want broadcasted publicly. Sexual acts, politial opinions, social opinions, partners, etc, all of these are commonly used to discriminate by all groups. Not wanting to have absolutely everything you do recorded doesn't mean that you're doing something that is harmful or wrong to society; there are a multitude of common situations in which…

> When Eric Schmidt wrote that quote, it was defending an ill-fated and misguided attempt to force real names

He said this 18 months before the real names policy, and he actually said it as a warning to users.

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

#126
post #74

Has anyone, Amazon or otherwise, clarified what the Echo is actually recording? If anything? My use of the Echo and my reading of the information available from Amazon indicated that nothing of any value was ever recorded/saved. /edit Ok, I'm an idiot. I see now that the app has a history of my commands and their audio recordings. Which is actually kind of creepy. But then I wonder why the police don't just check thi…

No, they're asking amazon to provide everything it recorded. Publicly they're saying it might have been accidentally triggered (e.g, device thinking it heard the wakeword)

Privately, they're hoping it records everything.

However to date, wireshark investigations and other forensics people have done proves it only sends data to the cloud when you ask it the wakeword.

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

#127
post #67

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…

Replace "murder" with "homosexual relations in a country where it is punishable by death" and tell me you still stand by your argument. Are you okay with government using cloud-based computing hobbies to find and kill homosexuals in their country? If not - why? If it is illegal they shouldn't be doing it, right? Tools used for "good" can also be used for "evil" and something so many people fail to account for is how…

I think the replacement argument breaks down because I don't expect the countries I'm aware of where homosexuality is punishable by death to have anything like the protections for personal liberty that Arkansas does.

I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but from a practical standpoint, my argument would be something along the lines of a similar sentiment to Mr. Schmidt: "If you're homosexual in a country where that's a death sentence, please keep your head down until you can get out. Learn how to encrypt everyting. Don't rely on any third-party providers that you can't trust. Don't hand the murderer your own noose." And that sucks, because it's brutally unfair, but "brutally unfair" is assumed when talking about nations where homosexuality is punishable by death.

From a moral standpoint, my argument would be something along the lines of "Murder is a horrible evil and homosexuality is not. We should be able to reserve more tools legally to track down murderers than to pry into someone's personal sexual preferences, and I'm lucky to live in a country where (generally) things are seen that way, most of the time." We already do reserve more tools legally to investigate a criminal case; privacy can be encroached upon by existing common-law methods. The question of interest is really, are your water logs and Alexa conversations priest-and-spouse-like or best-friend-like?

Possibly more importantly: how does the replacement argument map to practical action? If we decide that we don't want to allow collected logs to be subpoenaed for murder trials (or we decide logs should be legally banned from being collectible---that'll make a lot of personal-improvement projects illegal, but let's entertain it for a second), how will that help homosexuals in countries where it's punishable by the death penalty? Those countries will look at our worst-case-scenario reasoning, say "That's nice," and then go on to log citizen activities anyway. The "should we" argument has absolutely no bearing on the capability argument, and if we're going to bring other nations into the risk model, we have to talk capability.

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

#128

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…

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.

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

#129
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a good thing to record data that helps solve a murder? The police are still getting it with a warrant and presumably from physical access to the device, so it's not the same worry as bulk monitoring.

>Isn't it a good thing to record data that helps solve a murder? Recording everyones data everywhere just in case it might be relevant to an extremely rare event like a murder is very dangerous. The use of NSA recording capabilities by employees to digitally stalk victims of their affection (LOVEINT) is a clear example of how badly this kind of collection can go wrong.

So how much do we hold back technology and the use of it to protect against people committing crimes with it (as mentioned above)

This data when used properly (which is probably the case 90%+ of the time) helps to make the world better, or provides efficiency for the company who uses the tools.

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

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from you giving them access to your text messages? Edit: IANAL, but pretty sure deleting incriminating evidence is obstruction of justice

I don't think it is. I expect cops to ask the provider for a copy of the messages as well. pretty sure deleting incriminating evidence is obstruction of justice Probably, but so what?

This thread started with the idea that someone might want their Alexa records as evidence of their innocence. I doubt that an innocent person would commit a crime to remove potentially incriminating evidence from their voluntarily offered evidence.

The prosecution very well might subpoena those records if they thought there was value in so doing.

Edit: grammars

Post reply on HN