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

71–80 of 185 posts

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

#71

Post by saagarjha »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #69
saagarjha wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably, their users have the right to not incriminate themselves.

The US right against self-incrimination does not protect against being required to provide records which already exist. It only protects against being required to give incriminating statements of a testimonial nature. As an extremely contrived example, if you've spontaneously written a confession to a crime and the cops learn of this, they can subpoena you and order you to hand it over. But they can't just require yo…

This doesn't work for client-side encryption, though–I cannot be forced to give up my keys or passwords.

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

#72

Post by Kiro »

aleksei wrote: post #60
danso wrote: post #6

I know that this article itself doesn’t have much content but I’m interested in what the police are actually requesting, and what they end up getting. Do they assume/suspect that Echo/Amazon continuously records and logs audio, akin to a security camera? Or do they have evidence that Echo was actually activated around the time of the murders, or afterwards by the suspect himself? I was also interested in this quote:…

> What is it that users don’t realize? You answered yourself in an exemplary fashion, but I'll state it explicitly (and simply). People don't think about it. I'd like to imagine anyone who realises the implications of owning such a device would refuse to own one, although I know I'm mistaken. I don't mean that people should know better (although ofc they should), but new technology is all too easily likened to any ho…

You are mistaken. The utility of Alexa/Google Home is worth any privacy intrusion for me. I simply don't care. Convince me otherwise.

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

#74

Post by jkaplowitz »

saagarjha wrote: post #71
jkaplowitz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US right against self-incrimination does not protect against being required to provide records which already exist. It only protects against being required to give incriminating statements of a testimonial nature. As an extremely contrived example, if you've spontaneously written a confession to a crime and the cops learn of this, they can subpoena you and order you to hand it over. But they can't just require yo…

This doesn't work for client-side encryption, though–I cannot be forced to give up my keys or passwords.

Client-side encryption doesn't always solve this.

Two main exceptions:

First, if the encryption is unlocked by a physical device that doesn't require a memorized code, or by your personal biometrics, they can get that without violating your right against self-incrimination.

Second, if they know what information is being hidden by the encryption and just need a copy of it to prove their case, the foregone conclusion doctrine lets them demand it anyway. (They are not demanding the key or password in this case, just a decrypted version of information they already know exists.)

But sure, in other cases it can have the effect you say.

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

#75

Post by superflyguy »

mtgx wrote: post #65
ISL wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alexa, call the police! #### is here, and he's trying to hurt me! Seems like a pretty good use for a voice-activated service. "Alexa, lock the doors!" also sounds useful in this context.

Attacker: Alexa unlock the door for me.

The way a thief can unlock your phone, you mean?

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

#76

Post by superflyguy »

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.

"Amazon/verizon - tell themagician's Alexa to start recording now. And don't tell themagician."

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

#77

Post by shakna »

Buge wrote: post #70
shakna wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, it's widely documented that Amazon stores recordings on their servers every time the watch word activates. Right. And it doesn't look like that happened. This is some sort of fishing expedition based on the premise that Amazon gets more than just wake-word activated data.

>And it doesn't look like that happened. What indication of that is there? My original comments were listing scenarios in which the wake word might have activated. >based on the premise that Amazon gets more than just wake-word activated data. I don't see that at all. It seems to me the police are saying "there's a chance the wake word activated, let's check, and if so, get those recordings".

> What indication of that is there? My original comments were listing scenarios in which the wake word might have activated.

And what indication do you have that it has happened?

> I don't see that at all. It seems to me the police are saying "there's a chance the wake word activated, let's check, and if so, get those recordings".

Well, no.

> "The court directs Amazon.com to produce forthwith to the court any recordings made by an Echo smart speaker with Alexa voice command capability, FCC ID number ZWJ-0823, from the period of January 27, 2017 to January 29, 2017, as well as any information identifying cellular devices that were paired to that smart speaker during that time period."

The key information for the police would probably be the device-pairings. It'd be more likely to occur and more helpful in proving the suspect was on-site at the time they're alleging.

My allegations are based on police misunderstanding how the device works.

> Prosecutors believe there are Echo recordings capturing the attack on Sullivan and removal of her body that could be found on the server maintained by Amazon.

... They believe the Echo recorded the entire attack, and then continued recording whilst the body was removed. That's a fair while for the Echo to continue recording after a wake word, especially one that is unlikely to be clear. Especially when, as far as I know, the Echo times out after 10 seconds when not given a valid command.

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

#78

Post by raarts »

Kiro wrote: post #72
aleksei wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is it that users don’t realize? You answered yourself in an exemplary fashion, but I'll state it explicitly (and simply). People don't think about it. I'd like to imagine anyone who realises the implications of owning such a device would refuse to own one, although I know I'm mistaken. I don't mean that people should know better (although ofc they should), but new technology is all too easily likened to any ho…

You are mistaken. The utility of Alexa/Google Home is worth any privacy intrusion for me. I simply don't care. Convince me otherwise.

https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/

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

#79

Post by dsl »

rococode wrote: post #55
adrianN wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Alexa, call the police"? Would that work?

Well now I want to try this with my Echo, but I'm too afraid it'll actually call the police and I won't know how to stop it haha

If you stay on the line and calmly tell the operator it was an accident or test call, it is absolutely fine.

I used to do telcom work for a machine shop. Part of my job was doing two 911 test calls every week (with and without an extra 9 for an outside line).

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

#80

Post by dsl »

dunpeal wrote: post #26
PascLeRasc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iFixit reports that it has 4GB of storage onboard [1]. That's room for 97 hours of mp3 96kbps audio [2], and if we're going full conspiracy they could have put an entirely different flash chip in there with the wrong markings. [1] https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Amazon+Echo+Dot+Teardown/613... [2] https://soundandpicture.com/2011/06/audio-memory-cards-how-m...

It would be super sketchy if it records any audio, since there's no real reason or need to do that for the features it provides. Also, if we're going conspiracy mode: we're all surrounded by devices with very good microphones that are always on, primarily our phones.

It's not really a conspiracy. The CIA actively uses vulnerable phones, televisions, and other devices as clandestine listening devices.

99.9% of HN readers are just too boring (read: not terrorists or foreign officials) to have to worry about it.

Post reply on HN