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

131–140 of 185 posts

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

#131

Post by oAlbe »

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.

What kind of utility do you derive from Alexa/Google Home that is so vital to you?

I'm genuinely curious because your comment made me think I might be entirely missing the point of those devices.

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

#132

Post by rock_hard »

ainiriand wrote: post #122
AlexB138 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or "we're not interested in being regulated by a foreign government".

Is there such thing as foreign in the internet? Can you choose to just not adhere to a law that protects the users? If the law was unfair it would be fair to resist, though.

Fair is a matter of perspective and opinion and not a universal fact though

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

#133

Post by lwhalen »

rock_hard wrote: post #130
ReverseCold wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Good luck lecturing people what to call things...

You must not have been anywhere near the tech community for, oh, the last five years or so... :-)

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

#134

Post by briandear »

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.

Luckily for those of us that do care about privacy, we have HonePod. Not quite as comprehensively creepy as Alexa, but of similar utility and definitely better when it comes to audio quality.

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

#135

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jacquesm wrote: post #103
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:…

> she It. Alexa is a a device, not a person.

Alexa is a service, accessed [via an app] through devices. I have it on my phone and on an Amazon FireTV stick.

It's a matter of taste whether to apply a gendered pronoun to an object. Some people refer to their car as she or he.

Clearly from Amazon's pov it's a marketing thing, but I think you'll be aiming against a rather vicious current of you refuse to use gendered pronouns for tech that we interact with in a human manner.

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

#136

Post by thsowers »

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:…

> Though I’m sure most users don’t realize that when Alexa does trigger, she sends the audio to the Amazon mothership, which are then stored/analyzed for an indefinite time.

Additionally, Amazon receives several seconds of audio _before_ the trigger word was used

Edit: I can't find a source for this, but IIRC this was part of the initial Echo roll out, and one of the reasons I decided not to purchase. Perhaps Amazon has changed this so now it only listens and sends data after the wakeword.

It does appear to have been updated: "When you use the wake word, the audio stream includes a fraction of a second of audio before the wake word, and closes once your request has been processed."[0]

[0]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...

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

#137

Post by pbhjpbhj »

walrus01 wrote: post #7
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:…

> Do they assume/suspect that Echo/Amazon continuously records and logs audio, akin to a security camera? Yes, I think random non-technical homicide detectives might very well assume this. They're fishing for anything they can get, even if it's a 1% chance. Almost certainly the subpoena response from Amazon will be that they are not in possession of a recording.

Is there any suggestion that a system is in place to lie openly and hand over a recording privately? Or is that only for national security cases?

If a comment were keeping recordings they weren't allowed to make, and just lied to deny it is there a verification process that could reveal the lie?

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

#138

Post by danso »

zaroth wrote: post #33
danso wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inter…

Cell-site location data is collected by cell phone companies incidentally but inseparably as a side-effect of using the phone. And using a phone is no longer seen as an optional device to carry around. The Alexa recordings are collected as a primary function of the device purchased and setup at the whim of the owner specifically for the purpose of capturing audio in their own home for advanced processing and analysis…

I agree that the SCOTUS case cited is not in itself the fatal blow against third party doctrine. But it's a major step in the courts recognizing that pre-digital doctrines need adaptations/concessions to apply to a digital society. Again, IANAL, but if the third party doctrine includes Alexa requests, then why have police (at least in other jurisdictions) needed search warrants to get account info and content and emails from Facebook/Google? [0] Though I'm probably naive in hoping that there's a conclusive distinction; the third party doctrine would seemingly apply for the U.S. mail, but doesn't seem to.

I definitely didn't mean to imply that the NSA is above doing illegal activities. But it seems self-evident that people were very surprised by the Snowden revelations, enough to demand reforms [1] (or at least "gestures", if we want to be cynical). And people would be just as surprised to find out the NSA doing something far more invasive today. Laws and regulations don't mean that illegal activity will cease to exist -- but it makes such activity much more difficult/cumbersome to do, especially on such a wide-scale, without the conspiratorial buy-in from agency managers, leaders, and high-ranking legislators. So I'm not surprised that the NSA has the capability to do massive 1984-like domestic surveillance, but I would be surprised that such a program was approved and implemented. The laws/regulations on paper are what make it possible for anyone to get punished when someone like Snowden whistleblows.

[0] https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/unsealed-docum...

[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-the-nsa-spyin...

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

#139

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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.

Does Alexa need Star Trek-style command codes.

"Alexa, unlock the door, command override Janeway alpha-two-phi."

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

#140

Post by danso »

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:…

To answer my own question, other outlets have some extra bits of info:

http://www.unionleader.com/news/crime/judge-orders-amazon-to...

The Union-Leader quotes the district attorney's request, which seems to have cognizance of how Echo works:

> On Oct. 30, Senior Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Ward asked Houran to direct Amazon.com to produce any recordings made between Jan. 27 and Jan. 29, 2017, suggesting evidence of the crime of murder and/or hindering apprehension of prosecution could be found on the device.

> “As part of the normal functioning of an Echo electronic device activated either intentionally or accidentally by ‘wake up words,’ audio recordings are made of the moment when the device is activated,” Ward wrote.

> “Specifically, when the Echo detects a ‘wake up word(s),’ the device begins audio recording through its integrated microphones, including recording the fraction of a second of audio before the ‘wake up word(s),’” Ward continued.

> The motion, which was made in lieu of an application for a search warrant, also asks for information identifying cellular devices that were paired to that smart speaker in that time period.

If there's one thing these kinds of stories have effected in me, it's the knowledge that I should scream "Alexa!" (or maybe Siri/OK Google depending on which room) right before I get murdered in my own home.

Post reply on HN