back to article US cops seek Amazon Echo data for murder inquiry

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 …

Page:

  1. Old Handle
    Meh

    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.

    1. TaabuTheCat

      Re: Interesting...

      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?

      1. King Jack
        Trollface

        Re: Interesting...

        Ms May has just had an orgasm. New law for 2017: An Echo in every home (except MPs and chums).

        1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

          Re: Interesting...

          Ms May has just had an orgasm

          Probably the first for a long, long time...

        2. Fatman
          Joke

          Re: Interesting...

          <quote>Ms May has just had an orgasm.</quote>

          Are you sure she CAN have one???

      2. Brian Miller

        Re: Interesting...

        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.

      3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Big Brother

        "A microphone in every room, listening 24x7, all connected to a service you don't control. "

        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.

        1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

          Re: In theory echo should delete everything it hears between commands

          Software writers like to have live data available for the purposes of -uh- bug fixing.

      4. TimB

        Re: Interesting...

        "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"

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Interesting...

      It is always listening, or it wouldn't hear the wake up command.

      My guess is it is always recording too.

      Pretty creepy.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Interesting...

        not quite as creepy as strangling someone to death...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Interesting...

          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.

          1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

            Re: Interesting...

            Not admissable?

            Did you read para 475645406644.99550 of the EULA?

            You know the one where is gives Amazon all rights to everything it records for the next 1000 years.

            Just send it to the recycling centre. Perhaps some other sucker will want the bug.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Interesting...

              "Did you read para 475645406644.99550 of the EULA?"

              I thought that was just handing over my first-born, who I'm not that crazy about anyway.

          2. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Interesting...

            The audio recording laws are worded so that it is legal if ONE of the parties knows that a recording is being made. They were crafted to make wiretapping illegal.

            1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

              Re: Interesting...

              The audio recording laws are worded so...

              Here - yes. USA - no. Half of the states have laws which make recording illegal unless both parties consent to it.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Interesting... From the pre Internet days

                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.

              2. auburnman

                Re: Interesting...

                But the existing audio recording laws relate to transmitted conversations between one or more parties. I doubt there's legal precedent for an always on audio recording device - known to be present, i.e. not a bug - that stores audio at a remote location.

            2. eldakka

              Re: Interesting...

              That depends on the jurisdiction.

              In some states/countries two party (i.e. all parties involved) consent is required. In others 1 is sufficient.

            3. PNGuinn
              FAIL

              Re: Interesting... Re wiretapping.

              So, the feds haven't tried to claim in court yet that a tapped conversation is a 3 way / conference call, and THEY knew that THEY were listening so it's all ok?

              Shame on them.

            4. NatalieEGH

              Re: Interesting...

              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.

          3. Kimo

            Re: Interesting...

            Arkansas has single party consent for recording. So conversations including the homeowner could be recorded, but conversations where the homeowner is not present would be a violation unless one of the other parties agreed.

        2. pauleverett

          Re: Interesting...

          yea, just as creepy , cos if the thing was real smart it would have/could have/should have...called the cops Rather than just to take your orders, the thing would actually have a real purpose to exist, right there...

          1. Allan George Dyer
            Coat

            Re: Interesting...

            @pauleverett - would it be smart enough not to call the cops if it hears a TV show, or one of those dinner party murder mystery games?

            "Amazon Echo here - Reporting a conspiracy to steal plans for a top secret military project called 'the Death Star'."

          2. PNGuinn
            Joke

            Re: Interesting... @paulverett

            "cos if the thing was real smart it would have/could have/should have...called the cops"

            Only if you could and did change the "safe word" to ERUGSGHHSSHH...

      2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: Interesting...

        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.

      3. d3vy

        Re: Interesting...

        "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"

        1. Donn Bly

          Re: afaik it only stores the text output

          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.

        2. P. Lee

          Re: Interesting...

          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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Interesting...

            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...

          2. auburnman

            Re: Interesting...

            "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.

      4. GrumpyOldMan

        Re: Interesting...

        Said this when they very first came out. Its the Samsung Smart TV saga all over again. A set of mics in your home on 24/7?

      5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Alert

        Re: Etatdame Re: Interesting...

        "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.

      6. Pat Harkin

        Re: Interesting...

        "My guess is it is always recording too."

        Won't that just kill their storage - every one of their devices recording audio 24/7? Should be fairly easy to spot though, just look at your network traffic before/after turning the radio on.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Interesting...

      If I had to put money on it, I'd say they are already collecting all this data and if they're forced to admit it in court will probably claim they are mining it "anonymously" and think that makes it OK.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Interesting...

      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....

    5. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      @Old Handle ... Re: Interesting...

      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.

  2. joea

    And a search warrant is not "a valid and binding legal demand" . . . why?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @myBackDoor

        Say it with me "alexa, order me a new tin foil hat"

      2. PNGuinn
        Coat

        jave a gag prder

        That's probably a serious offence or 3 on it's own - especially with your handle, Mr MyBackDoor.

    2. Suricou Raven

      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.

    3. W4YBO

      "And a search warrant is not "a valid and binding legal demand" . . . why?"

      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.

  3. DubyaG

    Probable Cause

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Probable Cause

      Google? Nah, this is Amazon and their recording. God knows what Google has.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Angel

        I'm only a messenger...

        https://madeby.google.com/home/

        He says hello, and He purchases neither from Amazon or Google, wifi signal not too great up there you see...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Probable Cause

        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)?

    2. d3vy

      Re: Probable Cause

      @dubya

      "If it was the property of the alleged perpetrator, it would get more complicated"

      RTFA

      The device WAS/IS owned by the accused not the victim.

  4. NotBob
    Big Brother

    I want to support Amazon, but can we really say they are doing the Right Thing® if it's only to cover up for all the shady spying for advertising they are doing?

    Seems we have more Big Brothers watching than I want to think about...

  5. Kaltern

    I imagine Google's similar device will also not be recording every murder committed in home either.

    In fact, it won't be long before these devices are suddenly to be used in every possible terrorism threat the authorities can make up.

    Kind of reminds me of CtOS...

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like