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

Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 196 posts

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#61

Post by Starwatcher2001 »

gjjrfcbugxbhf wrote: post #5
gtirloni wrote: post #2

> after the defendant consented

But how long before lack of consent is considered incriminating? There are also many different jurisdictions which don't have 5th amendment style protections.

In the UK, we have the right to remain silent when questioned by a police officer. But in 1994, the wording was changed to include: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#62

Post by andrepd »

wyldfire wrote: post #47

This is a non-issue. The audio Amazon receives is from only-just-barely-before the wakeword up to and through the command or timeout expiration. Yes, it's possible that the defendants cat meowed right before the murder and it sounded like "Alexa". But it seems incredibly unlikely. Prosecutors are just trying to cover every base but the likelihood that this will yield anything is very low.

> The audio Amazon receives is from only-just-barely-before the wakeword up to and through the command or timeout expiration.

I wonder, how on earth do you know that, that you are able to dismiss it with such confidence as a non-issue. That's the problem with proprietary systems (proprietary always-on microphones at that). I would be surprised if they weren't actually listening and analysing and storing data from the microphone feed at all times.

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#63

Post by TallGuyShort »

phantarch wrote: post #7

How is echo audio data substantially different than something like a tape recorder that was live in the man's home? What about a cell phone that was on a call at the time of the alleged murder? I definitely understand wanting to ensure reasonable privacy for users, but to me it feels an awful lot of a stretch to say that the echo is off-limits in this case.

Comparing it to a tape recorder is interesting. If we consider this device to be the same as a tape recorder for the purpose of admission of evidence: (1) In some states, by having this device and turning it on you have now indeed consented for the conversation to be recorded - which would alarm most users (2) In other states, it is illegal for the device to be functioning without consent of all who are conversing, and the recording is thus inadmissable as evidence. Quite the opposite of what I think you're implying by that comparison. We keep seeing that treating new technology under previous legal definitions is very unsteady ground. You can see how comparison to previous technology would protect privacy and hinder investigation in this case, but on the other hand it makes me think of compelling you to give up encryption keys because well, they're not "papers" like the 4th amendment refers to (an argument which HAS been used before). So given that, how am I supposed to know what my actual rights are in a case like this, when it's so freely interpreted either way depending on the specific case?

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#64

Post by austenallred »

joezydeco wrote: post #56
npongratz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not certain there exists nothing to reveal. Is there a technical limitation of the system that prevents or avoids recording of "non-'Alexa'" audio? Or do I just trust Amazon when they say their alway-on device only records when triggered with the magic word? 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…

From looking at the internals, there's technically nothing that prevents uploading all audio constantly to AWS. Practically, it would be unwieldy to have 10,000,000 devices sending audio to 10,000,000 audio decoding and processes 24 hours a day nonstop. You'd also see a huge bandwidth hit at your ISP, which would certainly kill future adoptions if the word got out.

So record the audio 24/7 and compress and send once an hour? Once a day? Or eliminate empty space first. The files wouldn't be that big

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#65

Post by andrepd »

dagw wrote: post #9
phantarch wrote: post #7

How is echo audio data substantially different than something like a tape recorder that was live in the man's home? What about a cell phone that was on a call at the time of the alleged murder? I definitely understand wanting to ensure reasonable privacy for users, but to me it feels an awful lot of a stretch to say that the echo is off-limits in this case.

I suspect that it is as much about PR as anything else. Amazon probably has no qualms handing over the data per se. But they also realize that doing so without first putting up a 'fight' would look very bad.

But of course. Corporations are amoral entities. They do whatever it is that they calculate to yield the highest expected profit. They will do good things only insofar as it happens to coincide with what's most profitable (as is the case). If the most profitable course of action was to murder children and they could do it without hurting profits via breaking the law or getting bad PR, they would do it (as at any rate they do in places where committing atrocities is the unpunished, most profitable course of action).

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#66

Post by Klathmon »

skocznymroczny wrote: post #51
kaino128 wrote: post #11

Can you call emergency services via Amazon Echo? I've read on a car forum I'm part of about someone who was working on their vehicle without jack stands and got trapped when their jack slipped. They used Siri to call their wife and jack the car back up. They probably would have died without it. I can easily forsee a future where consumers ask companies for voice assistants that turn on automatically when they detect…

For all you know, it could be recording all the time, and since it's a closed device, you can't prove otherwise.

Yes and for all you know that table you bought could include a large battery, LTE receiver, and a microphone and could be recording your every sound as well.

There's a limit to how much paranoia is warranted, and in this case I'm firmly in the "it's not" column. Yes, it could be recording your every sound for months on end and uploading it to evil amazon, but not only would they be in some hot water legally in some areas, but the media would have a fucking field day with it, and for what gain?

To be able to listen in on your conversations?

And if you want to argue that it could be remotely updated to target you to always record that data, you could always be targeted by inserting a microphone into anything else of yours (good 'ole bugs).

You don't need to like them, you don't need to own them, and you don't need to be somewhere that has them, but some of us see utility in devices like this. And to me it's well worth the trade off that my recordings could be used in a court of law when requested with a warrant and I agreed to it.

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#67

Post by simplehuman »

andrepd wrote: post #59
verelo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes me think in future cases when someone says in court "I do not recall", we are going to see Google Home / Echo data being called into play. As someone with 3 google home devices in the house, I feel like my feara I've been suppressing are all coming true.

Then why did you buy 3 Google home devices?

Adrenaline rush

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#68

Post by mtgx »

sesutton wrote: post #22
koolba wrote: post #3

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…

>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 The court can just hold you in contempt until you do[1]. They also probably won't buy "I forgot". [1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspe...

Well it would still be a whole lot better than what happens now. Microsoft, for instance, sued the DoJ recently because almost half of its data requests came with a gag order.

So you wouldn't even know when they got your data, and then perhaps used it against you - in secret (like putting you on a no-fly list, etc). And then they won't even tell you why you're on the no-fly list or why you're getting an audit.

The whole system is broken from top to bottom, and I think that has a lot to do with the fact that politicians who are supposed to represent the people, don't care about what the people want anymore or to actually represent them. They care about what various rich people or powers want them to do. It's not just me saying that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#69

Post by seanhunter »

saycheese wrote: post #25
sesutton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 The court can just hold you in contempt until you do[1]. They also probably won't buy "I forgot". [1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspe...

If you delete the data, prior to getting the notice to produce the data and it wasn't deleted in anticipation of such a notice, sure the court could hold you in contempt, but legally you've done nothing wrong. You cannot easily make a third random third-party delete your data.

There are quite a few situations where you have an obligation to not delete data so "legally you've done nothing wrong" is probably overly broad.
Post reply on HN