NH judge orders Amazon to give Echo recordings in murder case • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by betterunix2 » Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

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 will you do if a friend who does care and does not want the privacy intrusion comes over to visit? Do you at least give people the courtesy to inform them and ask their permission to have recordings of their voice sent to a third party service?

If enough of these devices are installed, having every utterance recorded will become a fact of life. You might not care, but when people believe they are being recorded they become less willing to challenge authority. That might be something society is willing to accept, but according to your individualistic view, society will not be asked -- it would only take a minority of people installing these devices to create a world of widespread surveillance, and the majority of people would never have been asked for their consent.

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

#142

Post by betterunix2 » Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

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.

Yes, there is such a thing as "foreign" on the Internet, a fact that has been dramatically demonstrated by China and North Korea, and also less dramatically by America (copyrights) and Europe (copyrights and privacy regulations). It is easy to forget that the Internet is only as international as governments are willing to allow, and that a government can (and some have) disconnect the domestic network in some country from the global Internet.

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

#143

Post by kabdib » Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

uptown wrote: post #45

oh-kumudo wrote: post #22

Earlier 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…

Why would you need voice? Just translate to text and send that. It’d be a very very small payload.

A defense lawyer would have a ton of fun poking holes in the accuracy of speech-to-text, especially on a small device. (You could easily determine if the device is doing this kind of processing by looking at power draw or thermals. This stuff takes a lot of crunch).

Amazon isn't stupid. They know that if a back-door is found in these devices, or if they have bugs that allow them to be compromised, that they are toast in the market. I'd be surprised if they didn't have internal briefs and a bunch of planning on many scenarios like this.

Amazon has almost certainly made the most secure device it can, knowing it will be under intense scrutiny, and will have prepped its legal teams appropriately.

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

#144

Post by danso » Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

icelancer wrote: post #94

Kiro wrote: post #72

Earlier 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.

Even without that last sentence, the comment is not helpful. We’re not told what the user sees as the benefits of Alexa, and we don’t know what he sees as the privacy trade offs. It’s possible he uses Alexa for some lifesaving utility that far outweighs even if Amazon were illegally violating his privacy. Or maybe he’s ignorant tot he specifics of what Echo and Amazon do/don’t collect. And anyone who replies is forced to play the annoying game of read-my-mind/how-dare-you-assume-that’s-what-I-meant.

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

#145

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

betterunix2 wrote: post #141

Kiro wrote: post #72

Earlier 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.

What will you do if a friend who does care and does not want the privacy intrusion comes over to visit? Do you at least give people the courtesy to inform them and ask their permission to have recordings of their voice sent to a third party service? If enough of these devices are installed, having every utterance recorded will become a fact of life. You might not care, but when people believe they are being recorded…

> What will you do if a friend who does care and does not want the privacy intrusion comes over to visit?

If a friend has really idiosyncratic and unusual preferences, they should be good enough to announce those when they visit. Of course a normal host would be willing to unplug their Google Home or Amazon Echo.

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

#146

Post by usrusr » Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 4:47 PM UTC

jeremyjh wrote: post #104

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, I agree but for me personally I don't care That is contradictory.

It is not. The difference is choice . Mass surveillance does not offer you a choice about participating, or ties that choice to some everyday activity. Putting an Echo in your home is a choice.

Choice can be a very weak consolation. Just like how not driving isn't really a viable choice in many regions (although nobody is technically being forced to drive), if choice makes surveillance acceptable, that choice could easily be eroded to the point of being merely a theoretical option. "You want to live without surveillance? Your choice, because we respect that choice so much we have set up special surveillance free zones in Pennsylvania"

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

#147

Post by rustcharm » Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

nolok wrote: post #41

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:…

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"

I have several Alexa devices in my house. I don't care. I'm just not that interesting.

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

#148

Post by rocqua » Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 4:59 PM UTC

dsl wrote: post #80

dunpeal wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Source?

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

#149

Post by steelframe » Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

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:…

Last time I stayed in an Airbnb rental, I discovered an Amazon Echo device in the room. I immediately unplugged it and then wondered whether the landlord has violated my privacy as a tenant. The consensus on a couple of forums I found discussing it was that the Echo doesn't record anything unless explicitly activated by the user, and so it's not anything like a wiretap. Some landlords were pretty condescending and dismissive of any claims to the contrary. I felt differently. I can't audit the device hardware/firmware/software to verify that it isn't tracking and recording information about me that I don't consent to be tracked or recorded when I'm in my rental unit.

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

#150

Post by rocqua » Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

jkaplowitz wrote: post #74

saagarjha wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> 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.

Note that they are then not allowed to use the fact that you could unlock it against you.