> Sorry, this content is not available in your region.
Aka: "We're not gonna adhere to privacy shit."
NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
91–100 of 185 posts
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s interesting. Can you elaborate a bit? Are you not worried because you think the information is not sensitive or do you think the risk of it being abused, lost or stolen is negligible? I’m really curious to know (and while I have a different opinion I think yours is legitimate as well).
All of the above. I don't think it's sensitive and I think the risk is negligible but even if it happened I still think it's worth it. Like I said in my sibling comment I'm against mass-surveillance in general because then you have no choice but here I'm actively deciding to expose myself because I find the utility worth it.
I agree.
We talk about the "identity theft" problem here quite a bit. One time someone wrote about how there is no such thing as identity theft. If someone persuaded a bank to give them money by pretending it was me, the thief didn't steal anything from me. The bank gave the thief money and should try to recover it themselves. I'm not a part of that equation.
I think it is stupid to establish any kind of causality based on the things I search online or the things I do on the computer. The problem isn't that Amazon is recording my activity. The problem is that somehow we allow this to be admissible in a court of law. My shower thoughts don't make me a criminal. I'm innocent until proven guilty. Searching for nitroglycerine or whatever is not the same as the proverbial trout in cow milk that prosecutors claim to be. What's next? Private diaries as evidence that I killed someone?
Edit: spelling
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#93> Sorry, this content is not available in your region. Aka: "We're not gonna adhere to privacy shit."
More: we disrespect your privacy and can’t get away with it there.
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#94Earlier 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.
Though the person is being a slight jerk with the last sentence in this comment, there's no reason to mass-downvote someone just because they don't value their privacy as much as anyone else. The poster is not telling people they should not value privacy, only that the poster does not in exchange for utility.
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#95I don't see what the problem is here.
Amazon is required to just send some files to the court which is fine.
It's not like the iphone case where FBI wanted a sort of permanent backdoor that could be used for everyone.
If a murder happened in your house, the police should receive your echo logs from amazon.
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#96I 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.
> You can monitor Echo itself over your network
No, you can't. The SSL certs are pinned.
You can determine the metadata and quantity of data transferred, but not the contents.
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#97Earlier 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.
> You can monitor Echo itself over your network No, you can't. The SSL certs are pinned. You can determine the metadata and quantity of data transferred, but not the contents.
This is the point - a constant stream would be easily detected from metadata alone.
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#98My company responds to subpoenas with a wiki article on how client side encryption works
And if the judge is feeling especially generous, they'll respond to you with a Wikipedia article on contempt of court.
No, because the point of client-side encryption is that the service provider does not have the data to hand over.
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sending voice data constantly is easy to catch on the user's side, by simply monitoring the traffic. So once they got caught, it is going to cause them a huge fortune and completely meltdown in terms of customer trust. And on the technical side, this makes very little sense either, they only needs to have the Alexa keyword detected then went through the backend ASR service, otherwise the cost is going to be overwhelm…
Well, the recording could be near-continuous, but compressed and stored until a user makes a request. Therefore, you’d need to record the amount of data transmitted over a certain time period and set an upper bound based on that. Of course, if you could install a custom cert on the device, you could just MiTM the connection and see exactly what is sent...
Technically possible? Sure. However, it just makes zero economical sense for them to do so. Sooner or later, they would get caught (reverse engineering, ex-employee, ...).
Now, if the device were to get compromised, it would be an entirely different story (and this is why I don't have one, despite trusting Amazon in that regard).
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#100Earlier 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.
How are they useful? I watch their commercials on TV and frankly I don't understand why I should use one even if all processing would happen inside the device.