Interesting...
Good on them for not making it too easy I guess... unless they're only resisting because it would reveal the device really does record you at all times in they released the data.
Amazon has resisted a warrant to release information to US police seeking data from its Echo device, in order to gather evidence on a murder investigation. The device is owned by James Andrew Bates from Arkansas, who is accused of strangling his friend Victor Collins, who was found dead in a bath at the suspect’s home in …
More interesting would have been Amazon saying there was simply nothing to produce. Telling that they are using legal weasel words instead, clearly aimed at placating customer concerns about privacy and keeping Echo sales strong.
A microphone in every room, listening 24x7, all connected to a service you don't control. What could possibly go wrong?
A microphone in every room, listening 24x7, all connected to a service you don't control. What could possibly go wrong?
You mean like the typical cell phone, which is switched on, has an active microphone, and is within voice distance of the typical user?
"OK, Google..." or "Hey, Siri..." is normal, but "Alexa ..." is strange? Anything that has a microphone on it and a network connection is a possible spy in your home. The Echo made news simply because this is the fist time that the cops think that it may contain relevant information. I would love for Amazon to say, "here you go, no problem," with a big fat blank sheet of paper, because the device really doesn't have anything on it. Like everything that's spoken in the range of its microphone.
But wait till you see their new streaming video system. Something like this
In theory echo should delete everything it hears between commands (it's not a command) and at most log when and what command was requested.
In practice??
And best of all you pay for your own surveillance.
"More interesting would have been Amazon saying there was simply nothing to produce. Telling that they are using legal weasel words instead"
That doesn't really raise any red flags for me. I'd probably be more concerned if they did simply say there's nothing to provide - that would mean they at least got as far as looking. In a company the size of Amazon, there should be no reason for the legal guys to have access to Alexa data, and whether or not the data exists shouldn't have any bearing on their response. So at this time, it looks to me like they're doing the right thing.
The fun part will be if they get dragged through the courts, ordered to release the data anyway, and *then* turn round and say "Sorry...nothing there"
Nope, not as creepy as that. But IF everything in your home is being recorded, there are laws in the US that prohibit that sort of thing without permission of the recorded parties. That could throw a wrench in the works if a court rules those recordings -if they exist - as inadmissable.
Both parties must know led to an interesting legal case a couple of decades ago. A manager had hidden a tape recorder before confronting an employee about stealing something, The employee murdered him. So was the tape inadmissible in court because it was illegally obtained? I never heard the resolution to that one.
It sounds like a similar issue here if the crime occurred in a "both parties must know" state.
1. Not all areas allow only 1 party knowing recordings are being made. In the state of Illinois in the United States of America, the law requires both parties be informed recordings are being made.
2. That said, probably there is a statement in the EULA to the effect that the device is always on and listening (not that it takes a lot of brains to realize that if it turns "on" and "off" with a voice command). By agreeing to the EULA the users, from a legal standpoint, may be giving full rights to the device listening at all times and to the remote party being allowed to use any and all data received in any manner they choose including selling it to others, recording, data mining, and possibly even use in criminal investigations.
3. For myself, I have only 3 things that can track any of my activity and I know when they are on and when they are off. My microphone for my computer (I plug it in when I am using it, and unplug when not using it), my GPS in my car, my GPS for my motorcycle. My GPS can stay home if I want no one to be able to track. I do not use a cell phone. My car predates all the fancy electronic stuff like On-Star and a EPU.
4. While I do not trust of the government to keep its nose where it belongs, I have absolutely no trust of big business. I consider them liars, manipulators, and greedy far beyond Midas or Avarice. Most of my distrust of government is because government employees and elected officials can be swayed by the bribes of big business. No, I choose to keep my personal business out of their hands.
So all your lovely data goes to perhaps the most agressive retailer on the planet.
And people pay money to get this spy in their homes?
Bonkers, totally bonkers.
Much like the guy on the Radio today who said that tracking you inside a store using your phone was just to get footfall figures. People believe that?
Send in the men in the white coats. You need to be put somewhere nice and quiet.
"My guess is it is always recording too."
That might be your guess but my understanding is that you would be wrong.
The device listens for a wake word and then streams audio to an Amazon server for voice recognition etc.
You can log in at any time and see a record of the requests that Amazon have received from your device, afaik it only stores the text output of the voice recognition (I am not sure if this is the case as it would make sense to store at least some of the audio for testing/improving the system - appropriately anonymised ideally)
One of the other pieces of evidence that they have put forward (according to *i think* the guardian) was the guys smart water meter that showed he used a significant amount of water at around 3am... They are suggesting that this was to wash blood from the patio (no mention of strangulation in that article)...
Amazon are completely right to resist this, I can see it turning into another massive waste of time and money... At the end of this best case is they are hoping for a few false positive activations in the minutes leading up to the death having caught something incriminating...
"Amazon, play my 'strangling Jeff' play list"
Both the recorded sound clip and the translated text are stored, that way when Amazon doesn't translate something you added to your shopping or to-do list properly you can play it back to hear what you actually said.
However, it does NOT stream real-time recording to the cloud - as I verified myself using wireshark after I purchased my first echo. It has a limited processor that is hardcoded to listen for "amazon" or "alexa" (user configurable) and then it records from that point to the first quiet period and THEN sends up that small clip in a burst up for processing.
I'm sure that if a PROPERLY EXECUTED search warrant is issued Amazon will be willing to comply and deliver up the data - as they have already delivered the account information requested. However, as evidenced by the filing the police are clueless as to what the Echo does. They already have the perp's Amazon account information so they could log in and play back the clips themselves. They really don't need anything else from Amazon other than to hold the data pending future prosecution. The current search warrant asks for information that either doesn't exist or they already have.
Until that properly executed search warrant is issued Amazon has a fiduciary responsibility to reject it and hold them to account. Not only does it protect Amazon and their customers, it protects the police against themselves even if they don't realize it.
I think you're right. However, staking my privacy on the size of the buffer is not "secure by design." I wouldn't have one.
Of far more concern is the <INSERT COP SHOW NAME HERE> idea that if the police tell you its serious, its ok to break protocol. Protocol is specifically designed to ensure that that everyone does the right thing when emotions or other influences might be clouding the issue. If its serious, I'd suggest the police should stop acting like cowboys and do their job properly, so that Amazon and I are protected from the fallout from helping them. Why do the police keep doing this? Surely they know they are going to be rebuffed. Its so stupid and happens so often it seems more like a war of attrition, hoping that some day Amazon will break.
I doubt they are looking for voice data on whether Jeff ordered rope, quick-lime and concrete, though it is reasonable for the police to ask for data which may help them, even if its unlikely.
More likely, they aren't after Jeff's voice at all: "Amazon, Jeff stabbed me. Buy 2000 grand piano's on his credit card and have them delivered. Also, two cakes; one saying, 'I know what you did' and the other saying 'I'll be back.'"
It will be interesting to know what happens to the voice recordings in the long run.
the guys smart water meter that showed he used a significant amount of water at around 3am... They are suggesting that this was to wash blood from the patio
Tsk. Why didn't he just sloosh some water from the hot tub? Didn't even have to get out. I dunno. Youth today, no idea...
"Why do the police keep doing this?"
Because it's only news when they are refused; "Okay officer, come in and grab a coffee while we pull that up for you" probably happens thousands of times a day.
As a side note if the police need a warrant for the information and get the data without one, then it would be illegally obtained and inadmissible in court.
"It is always listening..... My guess is it is always recording too....." From a security viewpoint, I'm more worried that the device could be hacked (or the connection to the Amazon servers diverted) to send what it hears to an eavesdropper. It doesn't matter what volume of recordings it stores locally if it can stream it out to a listener over your WiFi router's connection, you'd be effectively paying to install a bugging device in your home.
Also interesting, the guy had a nexus6p with device encryption, and they couldn't get into it..
Of course, the apple spin machine is not at work on this one, so that is just a footnote in the article, not a 2 month media circus aimed at telling the world their phones are uncrackable, and every terrorist and drug dealer should own one....
There really isn't any reason for Amazon to not honor the subpoena.
They are arguing that the subpoena is overly broad.
It is not.
They are limiting their request to this single unit and anything that it may have recorded.
The courts will eventually side with the police on this one.
The interesting thing is that the police are not sure of how Echo works and what information was recorded and sent back to Amazon.
If the echo unit sends everything back to Amazon regardless of key word... Amazon would be in a lot of trouble in a couple of states.
So time would tell.
Well, it's not binding to Amazon's intetests to not jave a gag prder on the police so they don't reveal it records way more than it should.
The police should comically request the data from the NSA, after all that's the purpose of this device for the NSA, that is it's 1 piece of the larger puzzle to spy on everyone everywhere illegally without ethics.
That depends upon the warrant. It sounds like Amazon is challenging the validity of the warrant, which might mean it was hastily-applied-for, or just a blatant fishing expedition on a suspect. Not at all an uncommon thing to happen. If that is the case, chances are it'll be resolved in a couple of days once the police submit a new warrant with more precise wording.
From the article...
"It is believed that these records are retained by Amazon.com and that they are evidence related to the case under investigation.”
The final clause of the Fourth Amendment...
"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Keeps the authorities from guessing at what incriminating evidence you might have.
Sounds like the investigatory powers that be have probable cause to serve a warrant on Google. A murder allegedly took place and a possible recording device was present. Since the device was the property of the victim, it seems appropriate for Google to submit what it has. If it was the property of the alleged perpetrator, it would get more complicated. The Alexa is like the surveillance cameras the the police go after when canvassing the crime scenes.
Google? Nah, this is Amazon and their recording
But otherwise the OP made a good point. The privacy fundamentalists seem to ignore that a murder has taken place, and it is possible (even if unlikely) that the Alexa device may have recorded critical information.
In the scenario where somebody was murdered, and the cops wanted data off the victim's phone to investigate the case, would these same people be standing up complaining that it breached the victim's privacy (and potentially that of the murderer)?