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:…
I sincerely doubt people don't realise that anything after the trigger is sent home, since a "feature" of alexa is that the app let you see each request you made, how alexa answered, and let them know if she got it wrong. I think it's more a case of "don't care" / "don't realize the risks"
NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
121–130 of 185 posts
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#122> Sorry, this content is not available in your region. Aka: "We're not gonna adhere to privacy shit."
Or "we're not interested in being regulated by a foreign government".
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#124Earlier 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.
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has been demonstrated that it does not send network traffic apart from requests made to it; e.g. it is not continuously streaming data. Of course that could be changed at any time with a software update that you have no choice about accepting. To prove it is not recording locally could be much more difficult, but there are practical questions there. What media is it recording to, and if the recordings are never se…
That does not demonstrate anything. It could "buffer" the data it wants to send and only send it after the trigger word is detected, precisely to trick such naive analysis.
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#126Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#127Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#128> Sorry, this content is not available in your region. Aka: "We're not gonna adhere to privacy shit."
Re: NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
As are ships. But we still often say she.
I think using pronouns reserved for humans on a ship (engineered mass of wood/metal that doesn't spy on you and you can own) is more acceptable than using it on a company (which spies on you, is not something you own, etc).