
Amazon refuses to let police access US murder suspect’s Echo recordings - SmkyMt
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/28/amazon-refuses-to-let-police-access-suspects-echo-recordings
======
superkuh
More importantly, the headline should read: "Police use high time resolution
data from modern water meter against man charged with murder."

Basically this Abstruse Goose comic,
[http://abstrusegoose.com/553](http://abstrusegoose.com/553) , about the
dangers of utility data logging have come true. The greater the time
resolution of such things the more can be inferred. Such high resolution is
completely uneeded and complex in order to just charge for usage. The new
wireless meters could simply send daily lump sums and still be wireless and
easy. But instead they abuse the functionality in order to intrude on the
lives of everyone.

~~~
Hondor
Isn't it a good thing to record data that helps solve a murder? The police are
still getting it with a warrant and presumably from physical access to the
device, so it's not the same worry as bulk monitoring.

~~~
Sir_Substance
>Isn't it a good thing to record data that helps solve a murder?

Recording everyones data everywhere just in case it might be relevant to an
extremely rare event like a murder is very dangerous. The use of NSA recording
capabilities by employees to digitally stalk victims of their affection
(LOVEINT) is a clear example of how badly this kind of collection can go
wrong.

~~~
dmd
Your first statement is correct, but not because of what you said in your
second. Google "ubiquitous law enforcement" for some good reading.

~~~
Bartweiss
That was an excellent read, as Vernor Vinge usually is.

I've certainly used anti-surveillance arguments like "what if some employee
misuses the data", and I mean them, but it's not my fundamental objection. On
a much deeper level, I worry about surveillance as an _inherent_ harm. Partly
as the death of privacy (a right in itself, to me), largely as a de facto
power transfer to the state.

I think _Seeing Like a State_ is right when it argues that states depend on
'legibility'. If it can't be logged, measured, or predicted, it can't be
handled on the statistical level where states have to operate. And so
everything that increases the legibility of our lives eases the _real_ power
of the state, without any need to expand its _legal_ power.

~~~
pdkl95
> _Seeing Like a State_ is right when it argues that states depend on
> 'legibility'.

[http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/no-neutral-ground-
burn...](http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/no-neutral-ground-burning-
world/)

------
droithomme
The article title seems misleading. It says "Amazon refuses to let police
access US murder suspect's Echo recordings" and in the article says "Amazon
has refused to hand over recordings from an Echo smart speaker to US police
investigating a murder in Arkansas". However, the article then points out that
the device only has an audio buffer of a few seconds and there are no such
recordings: "the vast majority of the recordings it makes are not saved for
longer than the few seconds it takes to determine if a pre-set “wake word”
(usually “Alexa”) has been said. Only if that wake word has been heard does
the device’s full complement of microphones come on and begin transmitting
audio to Amazon."

So it would seem Amazon isn't "refusing" to hand over recordings. Amazon just
doesn't have recordings of everything that is said around it retained long
term.

~~~
maxerickson
USA Today has a few more details and got a statement from Amazon about it.
Amazon refused to answer the requests.

 _Specifically, the Bentonville Police Department requested "electronic data
in the form of audio recordings, transcribed records, or other text records
related to communications and transactions between An AmazonEchoh device"
located at Bates' residence and Amazon.com's services between Nov. 21 and 22,
court documents show.

Amazon refused both times. In a statement to USA TODAY, Amazon said will not
release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand properly
served on it. Amazon objects to over broad or otherwise inappropriate demands
as a matter of course, the company said._

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/27/amazon-
al...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/27/amazon-alexa-echo-
murder-case-bentonville-hot-tub-james-andrew-bates/95879532/)

~~~
infogulch
To be fair, compared to some other law enforcement requests I've seen recently
this is reasonably narrow. From this specific device, and only one day.

Still, they need to get a warrant.

~~~
ptaipale
> Still, they need to get a warrant

Isn't that what they do?

Article says "Arkansas police issued a warrant to Amazon to turn over
recordings and other information associated with the device owned by James
Andrew Bates."

------
fixermark
When Eric Schmidt said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to
know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," this is pretty much
what he was talking about.

We live in a society where passive, ubiquitous, voluntarily-accepted
monitoring is becoming the norm because of the vast convenience it affords the
users. The flip-side of that coin is _of course_ breaks in your regular
pattern of behavior are going to show up in the data trail.

Rather than blame the data trail, maybe we can just all agree to a societal
understanding that if you're going to take up murder as a hobby, it might be
somewhat incompatible with your other cloud-based ubiquitous-computing
hobbies?

~~~
inestyne
Same logic used in the Salem witch trials. You ever wonder why The Right to Be
Silent is the first right mentioned in Miranda? Our entire criminal justice
system is rooted is this concept. You have to be proven guilty and the state
has to provide probable cause to search or seize.

Eric Schmidt is as biased on this subject as you can get, he profits from our
data.

~~~
ttmb
The full context of that Schmidt quote was that he was warning people that
whatever they do, the government has legal (or as it turned out, extra-legal)
ways to find out.

"the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this
information for some time. And [...] we’re all subject, in the US, to the
Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available
to the authorities."

That seems like a good warning, hardly evidence of some nefarious bias.

~~~
fixermark
Precisely. If you're going to take up illegal activity, maybe don't search
"How to do illegal activity" on Google the week before you do an illegal
activity.

There are, to be certain, concerns about ubiquitous data being used in fishing
expeditions, but a dead body in a hot-tub on a person's property is hardly
"fishing expedition" territory.

------
zubspace
How can they refuse to provide the recordings in case of a warrant? It makes
no sense. They even acknowledge that the device is not always-on and therefore
probably not useful. Because of bad publicity?

If the police stands in front of my house with a warrant to search my
belongings, can I refuse that? Does it make sense if I have nothing to hide?

The recordings of the water meter is more interesting and the possible
combination with other devices, including the Echo. In case of a housing with
lots of IOT-Devices the police could reconstruct the actions within based on
the stored information, like when did someone eat, turn on the lights, wash
hands, open the door, watch TV...

~~~
smileysteve
> If the police stands in front of my house with a warrant to search my
> belongings, can I refuse that?

Yes, if your legal team denies it as overly broad. They can also file an
injunction. This is why you call a lawyer as soon as the police arrive w/ a
warrant or ask you questions.

> Does it make sense if I have nothing to hide?

Yes. Because you value your privacy of hobbies and speech.

> I have nothing to hide.

The average person breaks 3 laws a day. Whether that's speeding, texting while
driving, having your friend over who left a dirty sock that smells like
marijuana over. The police are "rewarded" when they find evidence of any
crime, not just the one you are accused of.

Not a great example of having nothing to hide, but a great example of a broad
search that found an entirely different crime. Survivor contestant, Michael
Skupin, was having financial documents searched by police when they found
kiddie porn was sentenced yesterday.

~~~
gravypod
Do you have a citation for the 3 times a day figure? I'm not disagreeing
because I belive it's true. I'd just like to see some real data.

~~~
jerf
Three crimes a day is probably a reference to this book:
[https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/1594035229)

(I know it's better to provide references to web pages and not books, but I
don't have a web page that recreates that book on hand. Suggestions welcome.)

As I understand it, it's an estimate, not an actual figure. In order to
perform such a survey, we'd have to sample people, record their entire daily
activity, and determine how many crimes were committed. Determining how many
crimes were committed would require an army of lawyers and private
investigators... and that's the _real_ point. As a normal citizen without an
army of lawyers, you should have no confidence whatsoever that you are not
committing crimes. If measured by "what could be used to convict you if the
government wanted you out of the way" I'd guess 3 per day is a grotesque
underestimate, at least one order of magnitude and I wouldn't bet much against
2.

~~~
KallDrexx
Hell just think of everyone going 5-10mph over the speed limit on any given
road.

------
misja111
I'm wondering, what if the suspect agreed with the request of the police to
check the Echo recordings? Suppose the suspect is innocent and thinks that
allowing access to the Echo recordings can only make his case stronger.

Would Amazon then still refuse access?

~~~
Godel_unicode
Does Amazon not provide access to your recordings similar to how Google does
with OK Google recordings? That seems easier.

~~~
icebraining
The cops can't be certain if the suspect hasn't deleted incriminating
recordings.

~~~
Godel_unicode
How is that different from you giving them access to your text messages?

Edit: IANAL, but pretty sure deleting incriminating evidence is obstruction of
justice

~~~
icebraining
I don't think it is. I expect cops to ask the provider for a copy of the
messages as well.

 _pretty sure deleting incriminating evidence is obstruction of justice_

Probably, but so what?

~~~
Godel_unicode
This thread started with the idea that someone might want their Alexa records
as evidence of their innocence. I doubt that an innocent person would commit a
crime to remove potentially incriminating evidence from their voluntarily
offered evidence.

The prosecution very well might subpoena those records if they thought there
was value in so doing.

Edit: grammars

~~~
icebraining
And my point is that the records are useless as evidence, since the cops can't
trust them, therefore an innocent person would want Amazon to provide the
recordings themselves anyway.

~~~
Godel_unicode
In the US it's the jury that needs to trust them.

------
getpost
Slightly off topic, but this brings up the issue of whether data maintained
using technological means is correct. And how can the correctness be verified
or refuted? For example, suppose Amazon does provide data in reply to the
warrant. How is anyone sure it's the data from the specified device at the
time in question? Database errors happen all the time. It might be possible to
use other means to assure that the data is correct, but it's unlikely anyone
with the necessary knowledge would be assigned to this task.

Similarly, in LA, there are no fare gates at metro train stations.
Occasionally police stop people leaving the station to check whether fare is
paid by scanning the transit smart card. What if the card malfunctions? What
if the scanning device outputs the wrong information? I have no way of
contesting or verifying the information on these devices. It would be me, the
passenger, held to account, not the infrastructure technology.

~~~
supergeek133
That's why in serious criminal cases we have trial by jury and not technology.
If your only evidence is a 20 second recording from an Echo, you shouldn't be
going to trial.

Poor DNA evidence/practices have wrongly convicted people, they have also
exonerated people that were wrongly convicted.

------
jmuguy
Has anyone, Amazon or otherwise, clarified what the Echo is actually
recording? If anything? My use of the Echo and my reading of the information
available from Amazon indicated that _nothing_ of any value was ever
recorded/saved.

/edit

Ok, I'm an idiot. I see now that the app has a history of my commands and
their audio recordings. Which is actually kind of creepy. But then I wonder
why the police don't just check this guy's Alexa app on his phone. And maybe
that's the real question - are they asking Amazon to provide some sort of
recording of everything the device heard that night?

~~~
supergeek133
No, they're asking amazon to provide everything it recorded. Publicly they're
saying it might have been accidentally triggered (e.g, device thinking it
heard the wakeword)

Privately, they're hoping it records everything.

However to date, wireshark investigations and other forensics people have done
proves it only sends data to the cloud when you ask it the wakeword.

------
dang
This had a major thread at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13263894](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13263894),
so by the usual standard this is a dupe, unless it contains significant new
information. Since both articles are lifted from The Information's paywalled
original, I'm guessing that's unlikely.

------
010a
I'm curious if this situation would be different if the Echo was owned by the
victim, and the murder happened at the victim's house.

------
throw7
This is really hard to support the headline from the story.

The artical says Amazon twice declined to hand over Echo data... I'm presuming
because the police didn't have a warrant. The article says Amazon has been
handed over a warrant (now?)... so... Amazon will or will not refuse to hand
over the data now with warrant in hand???

------
djrogers
How is this any different from a bank refusing to release financial records,
or a phone company refusing to release phone records? These both happen all
the time in criminal investigations, and I don't see a ton of recommendations
to stay away from banks and homes here on HN...

------
aburan28
Actually the headline for this should be "Amazon PR team spins disturbing
surveillance capabilities via Echo to make it seem like they are fighting for
privacy"

------
kristianc
Am I right in thinking that this means that all comms between the Echo device
and AWS are end-to-end encrypted? Big plus for the devices, if so.

~~~
ryanlol
While I've got no doubt that they are end-to-end encrypted, _this_ certainly
doesn't even suggest that.

~~~
johnward
Does this not suggest that Amazon could provide unencrypted audio files from
their servers? That's not really "end-to-end" in my mind.

~~~
ryanlol
End-to-end just means that the communications _between_ two parties are
encrypted, in this case _between_ you and Amazon.

------
thrillgore
First thought that comes to mind is: If Amazon lets the police access the Echo
it would prove they're constantly listening, even if the device is in "Mute"
mode

Which is really the main reason why I have avoided these smart speakers.
Encrypt them all you want. Send a NSL and all the sudden you've made
wiretapping _that_ easier. And that would be very bad for business.

~~~
HugoDaniel
nevermind your smartphone

~~~
gm-conspiracy
...or you live somewhere with glass windows.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_microphone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_microphone)

~~~
falcolas
Laser microphones at least require you to be targeted prior to the warrant,
and typically require someone on the other end. They can't retroactively
request data from a laser microphone attached to most US households.

~~~
ben_w
Given the cost of laser diodes is now pennies, how much would it cost to
target _every_ window in a city?

~~~
marcosdumay
You still have to distribute and read those sensors.

~~~
ben_w
I'm imagining drones putting sensor domes with ~100 laser diodes each on top
of existing street lights, using in the order of a few watts from a small
solar cell and battery to do basic signal processing (most windows will be
silent most of the time) and uploading anything possibly interesting over a
standard mobile data connection.

Then process the possibly interesting signals with a voice-to-text system
similar to Alexa/Siri/Google/Cortana and now there's a searchable text
database of everything spoken next to a window in a city.

That would be, what, mid tens to mid hundreds of millions of £ for London?
Compared to the annual budget of £3.24 billion?

edit: possibility->possibly

~~~
marcosdumay
Well, yes. Quite a possibility. In fact you wouldn't need the drones. People
putting them there will receive much less attention.

I still can't imagine those globes deciding what is "interesting" and what is
not on a solar panel power budget. But at this point it's guaranteed to become
viable at some point, and I don't have all the info to conclude it's not
viable now.

------
jankotek
Real WTF here is that Amazon is actually recording this. They break many laws
by doing that.

edit: Why downvotes? It is illegal to do voice recording without a consent.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_recording_by_civil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_recording_by_civilians#Voice_recording)

~~~
Godel_unicode
Can you clarify? It sounds like you're implying that Amazon is breaking the
law by using the cloud for voice recognition?

~~~
jankotek
Amazon would break the law, if their persisted data uploaded to their servers.
Article implies they do that.

(I am not lawyer)

