31–40 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they're hoping one of the parties involved yelled "Alexa!" as the crime was taking place. /s
Why sarcasm? If I was being attacked and remembered I would absolutely do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why make the government pay for it, when users will go on Amazon.com and pay to install their very own personal cloud home listening devices all by themselves?!
They're insignificant in all of this compared to smartphones.
In a surprise to no one, recording devices installed in users’ homes have recordings used in a court of law against the homeowner. In a surprise to no one, the third party doctrine means a warrant isn’t even required to demand these recordings from the cloud provider. In a surprise to no one, the NSA can intercept these recordings (and associated speech to text transcripts), load all the associated data into their mo…
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…
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 by a third party.
The precedent you cite is unfortunately not going to protect this data, in my opinion, because the specific rationale the Supreme Court used to start requiring a warrant for cell site data are perfectly avoided in this case.
As for the NSA doing things that are illegal or “pointless for their institutional mission”, which also happen to massively infringe on basic human privacy rights,... it would seem from recent history that that is exactly what they are most likely to do.
In a surprise to no one, recording devices installed in users’ homes have recordings used in a court of law against the homeowner. In a surprise to no one, the third party doctrine means a warrant isn’t even required to demand these recordings from the cloud provider. In a surprise to no one, the NSA can intercept these recordings (and associated speech to text transcripts), load all the associated data into their mo…
Law enforcement has managed to convince some judges at the right time in history with their twisted logic and unfortunately the case precedent thing makes this a thing that goes on for decades, even though that old ruling is now being applied to orders of magnitude more data on someone compared to the original case.
Until this changes just minimize or completely eliminate anything that can both record what you say or do and also send it to someone else's servers. Eventually all humans will have to fight for (I guess new) rights that can protect them against overzealous governments using advertising companies, surveillance powers and artificial intelligence against them. I think the 2020's will be the new 50's in terms of fighting for new rights and against government oppression. I don't expect this to go down very peacefully. It almost never does in such cases.
In a surprise to no one, recording devices installed in users’ homes have recordings used in a court of law against the homeowner. In a surprise to no one, the third party doctrine means a warrant isn’t even required to demand these recordings from the cloud provider. In a surprise to no one, the NSA can intercept these recordings (and associated speech to text transcripts), load all the associated data into their mo…
The third party doctrine is such bullshit. People have a (human) right to privacy in their homes. Banks don't get to say the money you put in one of their accounts is "theirs" do they? Why would you not benefit from the same kind of protection for your data? Law enforcement has managed to convince some judges at the right time in history with their twisted logic and unfortunately the case precedent thing makes this a…
They do. They even give it away to third parties. Legally speaking your bank deposit is a loan to the bank.
In a surprise to no one, recording devices installed in users’ homes have recordings used in a court of law against the homeowner. In a surprise to no one, the third party doctrine means a warrant isn’t even required to demand these recordings from the cloud provider. In a surprise to no one, the NSA can intercept these recordings (and associated speech to text transcripts), load all the associated data into their mo…
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…
The NSA also does a lot of interception for World of Warcraft chats and other stuff like that. And the new FISA law allows 17 agencies (including DEA, IRS, SEC, ETC) to gain access and analyze raw internet data that passed unencrypted through internet cables. Oh and they don't need a warrant to do that either (very likely unconstitutional but still "legal" at the moment). They only need the warrant for the cherry picked data they intend to use in court. And of course we all know the damage against many innocents will already be done by then.
Can you replace the link with this one? https://apnews.com/ebe802c103d64412aaef707e8719e946 The existing link is a spamfest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The third party doctrine is such bullshit. People have a (human) right to privacy in their homes. Banks don't get to say the money you put in one of their accounts is "theirs" do they? Why would you not benefit from the same kind of protection for your data? Law enforcement has managed to convince some judges at the right time in history with their twisted logic and unfortunately the case precedent thing makes this a…
> Banks don't get to say the money you put in one of their accounts is "theirs" do they? They do. They even give it away to third parties. Legally speaking your bank deposit is a loan to the bank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why sarcasm? If I was being attacked and remembered I would absolutely do that.
And the next question, what would you say to ensure it was recorded, identifiable, sent to the right person and had the right phrasing to ensure it could be used in court?
It's the same reason you should try and bite the person attacking you and scratch the hell out of them.