Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 196 posts

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#141

Post by Karunamon »

dandelion_lover wrote: post #128
Karunamon wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you, but I have no desire to become a digital pariah and avoid useful technologies just because they may , at some nebulous point in the future, be used against me in some nebulous way. If and when that happens, we can fight it then. I'm a believer in picking my battles, and see no reason whatsoever to pick this one.

Of course, you have the freedom to make this choice. However > just because they may, at some nebulous point in the future, be used against me in some nebulous way. If and when that happens, we can fight it then. sounds very much like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. .

You mean the slippery slope fallacy, codified into a story?

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#142

Post by jedberg »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #63
phantarch wrote: post #7

How is echo audio data substantially different than something like a tape recorder that was live in the man's home? What about a cell phone that was on a call at the time of the alleged murder? I definitely understand wanting to ensure reasonable privacy for users, but to me it feels an awful lot of a stretch to say that the echo is off-limits in this case.

Comparing it to a tape recorder is interesting. If we consider this device to be the same as a tape recorder for the purpose of admission of evidence: (1) In some states, by having this device and turning it on you have now indeed consented for the conversation to be recorded - which would alarm most users (2) In other states, it is illegal for the device to be functioning without consent of all who are conversing, a…

> but on the other hand it makes me think of compelling you to give up encryption keys because well, they're not "papers" like the 4th amendment refers to (an argument which HAS been used before).

That makes me think, what if I wrote the keys down on a piece of paper, and then told you I always copy it from the paper because I don't remember it. Then would I be protected by saying that my papers are protected and therefore so is the key?

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#143

Post by njharman »

tribune wrote: post #16

I own an Echo and this is part of the reason it now sits unplugged. To be honest, it doesn't provide enough value for me to consider potentially compromising the privacy of my home.

Your phone can record, video too.

Letting fear of privacy boogyman control your life is a sad waste of living.

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#144

Post by dandelion_lover »

Karunamon wrote: post #141
dandelion_lover wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, you have the freedom to make this choice. However > just because they may, at some nebulous point in the future, be used against me in some nebulous way. If and when that happens, we can fight it then. sounds very much like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. .

You mean the slippery slope fallacy, codified into a story?

...and proved to work in real life.

"If an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not be identified as the slippery slope fallacy,[2] and the term "slippery slope" may be used without an implying faulty argument."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_...

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#145

Post by Karunamon »

dandelion_lover wrote: post #144
Karunamon wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the slippery slope fallacy, codified into a story?

...and proved to work in real life. "If an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not be identified as the slippery slope fallacy,[2] and the term "slippery slope" may be used without an implying faulty argument." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_...

Given that there's no proof that Amazon is doing anything untoward with the Echo right now, arguments along the lines of "but they might in the future!" are an instance of the fallacious version.

If for no other reason, the behavior would be blatantly obvious to the kind of people that run Wireshark for funsies, the alarm would go up, and Amazon's reputation goes into the toilet.

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#146

Post by dandelion_lover »

Karunamon wrote: post #145
dandelion_lover wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and proved to work in real life. "If an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not be identified as the slippery slope fallacy,[2] and the term "slippery slope" may be used without an implying faulty argument." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_...

Given that there's no proof that Amazon is doing anything untoward with the Echo right now, arguments along the lines of "but they might in the future!" are an instance of the fallacious version. If for no other reason, the behavior would be blatantly obvious to the kind of people that run Wireshark for funsies, the alarm would go up, and Amazon's reputation goes into the toilet.

Would you also say it about the NSA before the Snowden leaks? Given our current knowledge about the state of surveillance, we have enough reasons to believe in the worse.

Upd: > the behavior would be blatantly obvious to the kind of people that run Wireshark for funsies

Echo probably does not send the recordings all the time, it would be too simple to detect. However, it could simply send random parts of the recordings or send the data by a trigger from Amazon/random hackers. We can only say for sure that we have no possibility to check what it really does, since it is proprietary. I prefer not to trust for-profit companies (when it's possible). I only trust the source code.

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#147

Post by gonehome »

npongratz wrote: post #46
shshhdhs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can only reveal voice data IF the victim said "Alexa" when the crime was taking place. If the victim didn't say "Alexa" that day, then there's nothing to reveal. Your example about encryption doesn't make sense in the context of the Echo.

I'm not certain there exists nothing to reveal. Is there a technical limitation of the system that prevents or avoids recording of "non-'Alexa'" audio? Or do I just trust Amazon when they say their alway-on device only records when triggered with the magic word? As I think about it, I'd ask the same regarding the voice-controllable phone in my pocket. FWIW, I don't trust the devices, because their operations are out…

The device does claim to only send voice recordings to Amazon during a query (when you say the wake word).

You can ask Alexa, "Are you always listening?" to get details about it. It's possible that the device doesn't have anything interesting anyway and they were just resisting the disclosure for PR reasons.

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#148

Post by idanoeman »

throwaway2016a wrote: post #134
andrepd wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The audio Amazon receives is from only-just-barely-before the wakeword up to and through the command or timeout expiration. I wonder, how on earth do you know that, that you are able to dismiss it with such confidence as a non-issue. That's the problem with proprietary systems (proprietary always-on microphones at that). I would be surprised if they weren't actually listening and analysing and storing data from the…

I hear this all the time and it boils down to what another poster said. I can monitor all the traffic going through my network. If the device was constantly streaming audio it would be very obvious. To which someone once replied to me: "But what if they aren't sending traffic through your network? What if they are using 4G or something like that?" To which I replied that while I have not personally done it. You could…

How do you know they don't

1. Listen all the time

2. Use a small neural network on the device to detect when a voice is present

3. Collect this data into one zip file, then send the file when the user says "Alexa", or anything remotely close.

They could even put a size limit on the data upload to reduce the variance to prevent you from ever testing whether they do this.

Or, they could simply transcribe the audio on the device and upload the text. Any audio they are unsure of could be uploaded to the server to be handled by a beefier neural network.

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#149

Post by leeoniya »

icebraining wrote: post #28
koolba wrote: post #3

This should be a lesson to people who don't understand the distinction between "can't" and "won't". If you're running things yourself and control the encryption keys required to access your data, then your service provider can't be compelled to release your data as it's not possible[1][2]. If you're delegating all of that to your service provider and they have access to the raw data, then you are putting all your tru…

Or as cperciva put it, "Playing chicken with cat.jpg" http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2012-01-19-playing-chicken-w...

> In Tarsnap I might take this to an extreme — in addition to the aforementioned encryption, I encourage users to read the tarsnap source code rather than trusting that I got everything right

You still have to trust that what's running on your machine and on the servers is compiled directly from the source you have access to, right?

Re: Amazon to hand over Echo audio from alleged murder after defendant consents

#150

Post by npongratz »

gonehome wrote: post #147
npongratz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not certain there exists nothing to reveal. Is there a technical limitation of the system that prevents or avoids recording of "non-'Alexa'" audio? Or do I just trust Amazon when they say their alway-on device only records when triggered with the magic word? As I think about it, I'd ask the same regarding the voice-controllable phone in my pocket. FWIW, I don't trust the devices, because their operations are out…

The device does claim to only send voice recordings to Amazon during a query (when you say the wake word). You can ask Alexa, "Are you always listening?" to get details about it. It's possible that the device doesn't have anything interesting anyway and they were just resisting the disclosure for PR reasons.

> You can ask Alexa, "Are you always listening?" to get details about it.

True, I can ask, but I don't know if I'd always believe the answer.

Post reply on HN