41–50 of 196 posts
I 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.
Without trying being rude, surely this was obvious before you purchased it?
I 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.
Mentioned 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how long before lack of consent is considered incriminating? There are also many different jurisdictions which don't have 5th amendment style protections.
It will be a long time in the jurisdiction of this case before constitutional protection against self-incrimination is stripped.
This 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 tru…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feels 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.
That 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?
With the defendant consenting, Amazon's standing for litigating this issue becomes more fraught.
This 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 tru…
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. Your example about encryption doesn't make sense in the context of the Echo.
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.
Prosecutors are just trying to cover every base but the likelihood that this will yield anything is very low.
I 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.
> after the defendant consented
I 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.