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

NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

wmur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 185 posts

Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

#11

Post by curiousgal »

themagician wrote: post #8
shakna wrote: post #3

I still don't understand why this is possible. I've frequently seen the claim that an Echo only records brief snippets, looking for the wake word. If that's so, there's next to nothing for Amazon to hand over.

It’s not possible. This is a classic example of the legal system confusing reality with science fiction. You can monitor Echo itself over your network and quickly realize that it’s not sending a constant stream of voice data. For the most part the device is off until it hears its name.

Maybe they're hoping one of the parties involved yelled "Alexa!" as the crime was taking place. /s

Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

#12

Post by peteretep »

zaroth wrote: post #2

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 mo…

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?

Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

#13

Post by peteretep »

ethbro wrote: post #9
themagician wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not possible. This is a classic example of the legal system confusing reality with science fiction. You can monitor Echo itself over your network and quickly realize that it’s not sending a constant stream of voice data. For the most part the device is off until it hears its name.

On the other hand, if the government comes to Amazon with a valid sealed court order, are you willing to bet they'll stand up rather than start streaming audio recordings home? Amazon winning DoD cloud business is actually the smartest thing the US government could do to align interests.

> a valid sealed court order

If the government show up with a valid court order, generally they can do what the hell they want? That's how justice works in a democracy?

Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

#14

Post by danso »

zaroth wrote: post #2

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 mo…

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-suprem...

Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

#15

Post by wpdev_63 »

This isn't really a shocker. They have been known since 2006[0] that the police(+TLA's) can use your cellphone as a eavesdropping tool.

The biggest problem I fear is that this will become socially acceptable in US as it has with the authoritarian gov't in China.

[0]:https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdr...

Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

#16

Post by rtpg »

ethbro wrote: post #9
themagician wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not possible. This is a classic example of the legal system confusing reality with science fiction. You can monitor Echo itself over your network and quickly realize that it’s not sending a constant stream of voice data. For the most part the device is off until it hears its name.

On the other hand, if the government comes to Amazon with a valid sealed court order, are you willing to bet they'll stand up rather than start streaming audio recordings home? Amazon winning DoD cloud business is actually the smartest thing the US government could do to align interests.

What would even be the legal basis for such a court order?

Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

#17

Post by Dylan16807 »

curiousgal wrote: post #11
themagician wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not possible. This is a classic example of the legal system confusing reality with science fiction. You can monitor Echo itself over your network and quickly realize that it’s not sending a constant stream of voice data. For the most part the device is off until it hears its name.

Maybe they're hoping one of the parties involved yelled "Alexa!" as the crime was taking place. /s

Why sarcasm? If I was being attacked and remembered I would absolutely do that.

Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

#19

Post by will_brown »

peteretep wrote: post #12
zaroth wrote: post #2

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 mo…

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 doctrin…

>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.

Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case

#20

Post by danso »

peteretep wrote: post #13
ethbro wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, if the government comes to Amazon with a valid sealed court order, are you willing to bet they'll stand up rather than start streaming audio recordings home? Amazon winning DoD cloud business is actually the smartest thing the US government could do to align interests.

> a valid sealed court order If the government show up with a valid court order, generally they can do what the hell they want? That's how justice works in a democracy?

I mean, yes? The need for a valid court order is so that the executive branch (e.g. law enforcement) can’t unilaterally surveil and detain people. The court makes this decision by looking at the laws, which are passed by the legislative branch. If the elected legislature passes a law that vastly lowers the barrier for govt intrusion, well, it’s not a great situation, but it is possible under democratic principles.
Post reply on HN