Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
[dupe] Amazon refuses to let police access US murder suspect’s Echo recordings (theguardian.com)
128 points by SmkyMt on Dec 28, 2016 | hide | past | favorite | 178 comments



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 , 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.


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.


>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.


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


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.


> Seeing Like a State is right when it argues that states depend on 'legibility'.

http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/no-neutral-ground-burn...


So how much do we hold back technology and the use of it to protect against people committing crimes with it (as mentioned above)

This data when used properly (which is probably the case 90%+ of the time) helps to make the world better, or provides efficiency for the company who uses the tools.


>So how much do we hold back technology and the use of it to protect against people committing crimes with it (as mentioned above)

Would you like an arbitrary line in the sand? Sure, let me give you one. The crime you're trying to stop has to affect at least 0.0001% of the population before I'll even consider lowering the quality of life of 99% of the population to protect against it.

0.0001% is an order of magnitude over the percentage of the US population that got murdered or manslaughtered in 2015, if you were counting.


But what is your line in the sand for then? Collecting the data? Or allowing people to access it via warrant?


Even having the discussion. It's default "no and fuck off" until then.


Unfortunately, that assumes that "you" have that choice.

Individually, I'm sure you can rip out, mutilate, deface, damage or what have you to devices that report fine-grained time-series data. But the moment you go anywhere else, you're being recorded, watched, monitored, measured, and recorded.

It's already being done, and it's way past time that we do have that discussion. Because without string and stark dialogue, we'll end up with "We're not doing anything wrong, so why should we care?" kind of responses. Or worse yet, people won't understand what something like accurate TS data from power input can lead to.[0]

And as an addition on the above comment, I also wrote a CPU-bound facial recognition app. I wrote it initially for a convention that we have for our hackerspace every year... But it took me a week to do in my spare time, using open source libs (OpenCV, QT). This stuff is just getting more ubiquitous.[1]

[0]: http://www.hennebert.org/download/publications/isspa-2012-ma... MACHINE LEARNING APPROACHES FOR ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CLASSIFICATION

[1]: https://github.com/jwcrawley/uWho


>Unfortunately, that assumes that "you" have that choice.

>Individually, I'm sure you can rip out, mutilate, deface, damage or what have you to devices that report fine-grained time-series data. But the moment you go anywhere else, you're being recorded, watched, monitored, measured, and recorded.

There are a variety of ways that this can be done, most of them revolving around visibility and community education.

Stop using facebook, stop buying voice assistants. Refuse to sign up for accounts that require your personal data. Be offended. Tell cashiers in shops on no uncertain terms that they don't need your email address to sell you things. Be a leader by telling people around you that you have consciously made these decisions, and /why/ you have made them.

Attach your public key whenever you email someone. Inevitably, someone will ask what the attachment is. Use it as an excuse to tell them about encrypted email.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Early next month I'll be getting an old stock but new in box feature phone from the UK. it's from 2011, it cost me $30 including shipping. It has a browser, SMS, a phone and /nothing else/. I look forward to showing off my new phone to everyone at work and explaining I ditched my Galaxy ace 4 because I didn't feel in control of it. It's partially a token gesture, I can still be tracked via the GSM connection, but it's a talking point. It keeps the problem in peoples faces.

The US government doesn't give a shit about the legality of what they're doing. They have a "secret court" that no one is allowed to ask about that is "authorizing" all the things they are doing. Clearly, you're not going to win them over by town hall debates. What we need is gentle but powerful groundswell opinion against surveillance, the kind that threatens election results.

P.S, you can also move to places where this shit doesn't happen. I moved from Australia to Iceland, and at least 30% of my reasoning to do so was that Australia is actively turning into a surveillance state.


> There are a variety of ways that this can be done, most of them revolving around visibility and community education.

Indeed. But I also think, that much of this community education and "awareness" has gotten people to ignore these types of things. A lot of it comes down to "ehh, whatever" or similar "convenience > privacy".

Facebook's a problem child. You have an account even when you don't have one, because other people put things up there and link to you. Indeed, having an account allows some modicum of control of other user-posted junk, whereas not having an account = no control.

Facebook also has network effect going for it; easy to chat on, and easy to see events and parties around. And being "that guy" means you're likely forgot about events. I'd love a viral solution to claw away from Fb and get my friends on. Ello seemed to be a good candidate but quickly turned into a shithole. I'll honestly have to look into Diaspora and its user-friendliness. Because again, network effects rule.

> Be the change you want to see in the world.

Indeed. I try to be. I have my own IoT infrastructure. Built it myself. I have a few different buildings I do stuff in, and use Tor to tie my network together. I've documented what I've done here: https://hackaday.io/project/12985-multisite-homeofficehacker...

> The US government doesn't give a shit about the legality of what they're doing.

Absolutely agree, being a US citizen. I am looking at emigrating elsewhere. Iceland was a consideration, as was a few other countries in Europe. But it also feels like trading one set of problems for another set of problems.


I think the parent comments are a separate issue from concerns about the NSA. Most people would agree that warrantless access to all data everywhere is a bad thing (smart water meter or not).

In this case, there are traditional limitations on law enforcement (requirement of a warrant) and a specific crime that has been committed.

In my opinion, using a warrant to get the data from the water usage device is no more problematic than using a warrant to search the house.


I think that's a difficult comparison to make because you can reasonably secure your house against unwanted entry and it's fairly likely that breaches could be detected.

Obviously malicious law enforcement could still circumvent that just as they could a warrant depending on their level of capabilities and your house's security, but there isn't a similar path to securing your water usage data against warrant-less searching. Its security is wholly in the hands of a third party and any security breaches are essentially invisible to you.

That said, we're both painting in broad strokes.


So we shouldn't collect data that might help solve a major crime because someone might commit a minor crime like stalking?

We're trading the potential to solve a major crime for the potential for a minor crime of stalking to happen. As long as we require that a warrant be involved in getting the data and there are punishments in place for accessing without a warrant I'd feel safe with them collecting it.


"Minor crimes" like stalking can lead to major crimes like murder. There are 2 major issues here:

1) The information might be used "off-label" for all sorts of personal and political reasons. There are countless examples of this in history.

2) The standard of evidence must remain high. Circumstantial evidence has been, and continues to be, used to convict innocent people of crimes. Giving the authorities what amounts to a mountain of circumstantial evidence could allow them to build a case out of thin air.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he must be guilty: he entered the bar two minutes after the victim, and left a minute after they did. He took an Uber along the same route and exited at the same address. 3 minutes later the murder weapon was purchased by a man matching his description a block away." ... and so on.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu (disputed, but classic)

Imagine what can be done with a lifetime of data from hundreds of sensors?


1) Which is why the data shouldn't be accessible without a warrant and there should be stiff punishments if it is accessed without one. We shouldn't stop all the other advances that come from the technology of these sensors and the help they could provide in solving very real crimes.

2) There's already plenty of avenues for circumstantial evidence already, this is the reason we have lawyers and judges to argue over and prevent evidence that isn't solid


1. It doesn't come from physical access to the device: the device is accessed wirelessly.

2. The water company collects all this data from everyone with the device.

3. As the Mirai botnet showed, it's not just the government who might have access to that data.


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

You might trust the current custodians of $BACKDOOR, but do you trust all future possible custodians that have dominion over that role? Keep in mind that nothing is technically restricting them to look only at possible murder.


its a fine line. There is a great fear of false positives from such inference. Let us imagine for a second that there is a legitimate reason for that water use that he doesn't wish to disclose because it would incriminate him for something else?

Hypothetically speaking if you were doing some grey-hat, "illegal" probing/hack at the time of a murder the police question you about; admitting to your actual activity could result in more time behind bars than a murder. If this activity was somehow vaguely recorded and correlated with an activity of the murderer then you have a serious problem.


I can't refuse a valid search warrant on my apartment because something found within "might incriminate me" for something else.

Take criminal cases where they find drugs in your system and use that to make it look like you're more apt to commit said crime.


"A legitimate reason for that water use that he doesn't wish to disclose because it would incriminate him for something else" is an odd definition of "legitimate." ;)


Just because something is legally a crime doesn't mean it's not legitimate.


Actually, that's exactly what it means.


No, it doesn't. Legitimacy (or ethics) is not derived from law (or the reverse). It's possible to be guilty of a crime (by the law) for legitimate reasons. These extenuating circumstances are improper generalizations or other imperfections in the law.


But a protected right in the US.


e.g. he needed to refill his secret swimming pool for his pet crocodile that he doesn't have a permit for.

"legitimate".


In the case of a murder, it's a good thing. The risk is always the chance of abuse, and although in the case of water stats it's hard to imagine how you'd abuse it, having more information always means a higher chance.

Ideally we'd want to get the benefits without the abuse, but that requires a solid bureaucracy and strong rules.


You can tell when someone's home or not from utility usage.


You've always been able to make this guess from lights on/off, windows, etc. It might have become easier to some people.


Timers and automation are a thing.


Those patterns would be easily detected in the dataset.

I tried logging my electricity use. You can easily see what time I wake up each day, when I get home, whether I watch TV or not, whether I cook using the microwave or the hob.

It doesn't show up on my graph, but I'd bet from the data you can see exactly when I go to bed, since I plug in my phone (+1W) and switch off the last light (-5W).

Within all this, the fridge compressor turning on and off is easily ignored.


Thus you have a training dataset. Train a statistical model, and with enough programmability in your smart home it will be easy to forge a rather normal-looking pattern in your absence. And I'd probably use some special fire-proofed energy dissipation device instead of the more powerful real ones (e.g. the hob).

EDIT: the internet surfing patterns are another story. But you can probably VPN to your home through some newly-installed network interface and access the net as if you were there.


Exactly so. And then there's the corollary of times you come home, walk around back and drink beer on the patio watching the sunset with friends and eating takeout.


Yes, by the exact amount of current used, the logger can tell what you've got on at any moment. It can be correlated with water usage as well. It'll log how many times you flush, and whether you brush your teeth.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the government tries to require a device that logs all our conversations at home. It'll be sold as "crucial for law enforcement".

The Echo is a technological marvel. But who's to say Amazon doesn't get a "national security letter" one day where they're forced to send a patch to the machine to have it log everything?

Some day, if I'm bedridden or some such, I'd welcome an Echo in the house. Until then, I'd rather get up and turn a manual switch. I could use the exercise anyway :-)


They're not going to have to patch what you can touch because they already want for themselves the information the government is going to request.


May I ask how you collected this data? I am extremely interested in doing the same. For me right now, my power usage is "stuff goes on, money goes out".


I have a CurrentCost power logger, given to me as part of the British government's insistence that power companies try and reduce power usage. The choice was a power meter or some low-energy bulbs.

I was lucky to move house just after the rules came in, but before cheap, residential versions of the logging devices were on the market -- mine has a serial port! It outputs a line of XML every 6 seconds showing power use, measured with a probe which clamps around the live wire where it enters the house.

I've since moved again, and my newly built apartment has the wires hidden, so I can no longer use the probe.

http://www.currentcost.com/product-envir.html -- but make sure you get one with a serial port.


> Those patterns would be easily detected in the dataset

You left off the implied "unless the intent of those systems is to create the appearance of occupancy". You know that a pattern associated with waking up happened. You don't know if I'm home or not. Now add in the case which happens to me sometimes where my morning ritual automation kicks in because my phone is home (but I'm not).


If I recall correctly, this argument has been successfully applied, from a legal standpoint, in the context of traffic from IP addresses on shared resources not mapping to individual user behavior (and, relatedly, in the context of a vehicle being photographed in violation of the law not proving that the vehicle's owner was driving the vehicle at the time the law was violated).

I imagine it'd be a harder argument to make, before a jury in a criminal trial, that the dataset showed the house was occupied because the occupant had rigged beforehand an elaborate system of intentional resource wastage to fake occupancy in the way that would fuzz a police investigation, as opposed to the much simpler explanation "the suspect was home." Burden of proof might be high.


> It doesn't show up on my graph, but I'd bet from the data you can see exactly when I go to bed, since I plug in my phone (+1W) and switch off the last light (-5W).

You'd probably have a viable business model if you could actually do that. Existing options like Neurio cannot reliably detect devices pulling single-digit power draws.


Assuming that digital electric meters are fair, it's quite easy to use them for this purpose. Most houses in the UK are fitted/will be fitted with them.


Ha, reminds me of when I brought my iPhone into repair due to a faulty battery. They took a look at the charts and noticed a high usage of power in the morning and then it would stay charged the rest of the day while I was at work. When the device was unplugged was when I left.


Circumvention is not the solution. It doesn't solve the problem for Average Joe.


The Amazon Echo records data from all of its users, not just the murderers. It's creeping close to bulk monitoring.


It is bulk monitoring. My four kids each have a google tablet. My autistic daughter has learned a lot through "OK, Google", which means everything said in my household for the past six years is sitting on Google's servers, waiting for America's Stasi to commandeer it. Frankly, it's bullshit that Google didn't know what was going on, or that I didn't either.


There has to be a line drawn somewhere, lest we end up with putting GPS trackers and video recording devices on each and every person.

That's obviously a slippery-slope argument, but it's not outwith the realms of possibility that if I can think of doing something like that, politicians (especially those!) can think of it as well.


> lest we end up with putting GPS trackers and video recording devices on each and every person.

....phones?


That's at least voluntary. For now...


"Voluntary" is easy to say, but the environment heavily suggests certain choices. A (mobile) phone is these days used or needed for authentication: banking, email, real time communication and social media. Having to forgo those things is not without drawbacks.


As long as it's voluntary, it's fine. We should keep educating people about the risks as long as we don't curtail what people can do with the technology voluntarily.


When I was a student this murder happened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_McLean One important piece of evidence was the record of the number of bus tickets sold at the time/place Tanner said he got the bus (there was also a witness that said he was alone). A single ticket was sold, not two he had claimed.

That was 1991.


We either assume the data will more often than not be used for negative reasons, and stop it, or we assume it will be used mostly for positive reasons and allow it to improve the world.

If we do the latter, we treat the minority cases as a crime. Just as we do when police use their access to stalk people.

That being said, I DO think we have poor transparency in these cases of who has access to what. I've always said that if it were publicly available to see how many times someone has run my license place and/or drivers license I would be really upset.


I think it would be important to know if Amazon can or would release information/data which could be used to exonerate someone suspected of a crime.


I wonder what the market is for a utility usage randomizer that fuzzes this data?


I believe building your own 'storage' units would be better (letting you draw from these as you need, without monitoring) thus having a continuously slow supply of water,gas, electricity coming from the grid.

As long as these storage units don't simply begin to 'top off' when they are drained, the usage could be masked by averaging and predicting demand.

very simplified water day

6am - Toilet flush & hand wash 2 Gal

7am - Shower 36 Gal

8am - Breakfast - Coffee, Oatmeal, Dishwashing - 2 Gal

6pm - Dinner & dishwasher - 8 gal

10pm - flush and brush - 2.5 Gal

So you'd want a constant 2.1 gallons to be fed in from the street per hour, and you'd need a minimum 40 gallon reserve tank to cover that day.


Quite true, but the opportunity for time-of-day rate arbitrage is tempting.


While it is likely illegal at various levels, there are probably ways to interfere with the smart meter via RF.


thats why i didnt want them to install the 'smart' meters for electricity. i told them I didnt want it, but they said they would shut off my electricity unless i complied.


You didn't want them installed because you were concerned they might rat you out when you murdered someone? ;)


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.


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...


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.


> 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."


Amazon said will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on it.

If my reading of this is correct, seems like all Amazon is really saying here is they're refusing to hand over the data until they're "properly served" the warrant.

The Guardian article did mention that "Arkansas police issued a warrant to Amazon to turn over recordings" but as IANAL it's unclear to me whether or not that's the same as actually serving the warrant, legally speaking.

Is "issuing" a warrant the same as "serving" it?


My non-lawyerly speculation is that Amazon doesn't agree that they are under the jurisdiction of the court that issued the warrant.

Like is discussed here: http://volokh.com/2010/01/08/does-the-fourth-amendment-allow...


But they do have recordings of everything said to Alexa ("Alexa, how fast will a body decompose in a hot tub?"), and potentially other recordings following false positives for "Alexa", as the article mentions: "...the device is also occasionally accidentally activated, through similar sounds..."

I used to have Google's voice search on my phone, and found it interesting that they store your recordings indefinitely. You can listen to your own voice searches: https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa. It was also interesting that they include what was said in the few seconds preceding the wake word ("OK Google").


Looked at mine and most of it is mundane/useless stuff like "open Spotify", "How many ounces in 13 lbs", etc. But there are some "text so and so: hey meet me wherever" type recordings...I find that little concerning, but not entirely unexpected. I like that there's an option to delete all of that info, but is it -really- deleted? Or just hidden from my view and kept on Google's servers and still associated with my account?


I just assume, unless they super-duper promise to truly purge it, that Google is hanging on to every bit.


Right, and the police asked for this data on the off chance it recorded something useful during this period.

They aren't assuming Amazon holds everything said in proximity of the device.


That still reflects positively on Amazon, though. It protects the innocent consumers AND Amazon if they don't build mass surveillance into their device to begin with. Makes me wish more tech companies were building end-to-end security into their platforms.


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?


I disagree as there is a pretty broad spectrum of activities that you might not want broadcasted publicly.

Sexual acts, politial opinions, social opinions, partners, etc, all of these are commonly used to discriminate by all groups. Not wanting to have absolutely everything you do recorded doesn't mean that you're doing something that is harmful or wrong to society; there are a multitude of common situations in which you wouldn't want privately shared information attached to you directly. Examples can be given, but excluded for brevity.

Also given that Amazon has shown that it isn't keeping more than what it needs to catch the summon word "Alexa", it shows that it is very easily and technically feasible to balance "always on services" with privacy. Apple does this with iMessage and it's mobile line. Windows, macOS, and many Linux distributions ship with a disk encryption option. This is something we have a pretty easy and readily available technical solution to that allows people to retain their private lives while having "always on" tech.

When Eric Schmidt wrote that quote, it was defending an ill-fated and misguided attempt to force real names for a reason that wasn't really made clear. It was a very weak justification for the real name policy Google was trying to push across their accounts, a policy they eventually gave up on. I get that there are scenarios in which an always on, always tracked, forever recorded, real name data collection policy can solve; but it introduces far more threatening problems than it solves; I've heard talks given by former detectives and police officers on how mindless data collection is an abuser's dream, and how so many abusers were able to find their victims even after relocation because of things like store loyalty cards being leaked, service integration revealing connections, and so on.


> When Eric Schmidt wrote that quote, it was defending an ill-fated and misguided attempt to force real names

He said this 18 months before the real names policy, and he actually said it as a warning to users.


This is the exact thing we have to fight against because it leads to class based systems. Those who use cloud computing are innocent and those who don't are presumably hiding something.

This is the why we have constitutional rights, to avoid such broad generalizations. Everyone has the right to privacy, regardless of what utilities or Hobbies they have.


Everyone has a right to prevention of unreasonable search and seizure.

It's still up in the air whether going to a third-party to whom you've voluntarily given a bunch of information about yourself and asking that third-party to render that information is "unreasonable." It's pretty simple to make a case that it isn't. To wit: there's plenty of legal precedent for compelling a witness to testify against someone; are we to believe that your Amazon logs or your water meter history should share the same privileged status as your attorney, psychotherapist, or priest? "Alexa, forgive me, for I have sinned..."


> It's still up in the air whether going to a third-party to whom you've voluntarily given a bunch of information about yourself and asking that third-party to render that information is "unreasonable."

It's really not 'up in the air' - it's been settled for over a century, look at banks and phone companies.


Taking an oath/pledge of confidentiality would be interesting business strategy on privacy, especially if it could be used to defend against claims from authorities.


There are plenty of things that you can take up as a hobby which are legal (and moral or amoral) that can negatively affect your life (job, social status).

You can argue that most of this is due to bigotry and missing legal protections, but there'll be no ultimate defence against unpopular activities any more than unpopular views.


> […] that if you're going to take up murder as a hobby […]

and right there is the problem. Nowhere in the article does it say that anybody has committed a murder.

You are not proposing to strip privacy away from a criminal, but from a person that is suspected of a crime and might just be completely innocent. That leads to stripping privacy away from everybody.


> Nowhere in the article does it say that anybody has committed a murder.

Article headline: Amazon refuses to let police access US murder suspect's Echo recordings.

If your point is that the suspect is not a proven murderer, then yes, of course I was speaking loosely and not adhering to the legal definition of innocence until proven guilty. But in point of fact, yes, we do strip some privacy away from murder suspects when suspcicion has justified a warrant or subpoena. It's quite necessary in investigating a murder to do so, and we generally have no issue with detectives asking a person's friends, employers, etc. about their activities on and about the night of a heinous crime.

The question of interest here is whether your Alexa logs should be considered "Something you told a friend" or "Something you told a lawyer / priest / spouse." The question of whether police are allowed to pry into a murder suspect's private life, indirectly, with a warrant when they are investigating a murder is well-settled common law.


I would argue that the thing in your home that's listening to all your conversations is quite clearly closer to a spouse than a friend. But that is a different topic.

A murder suspect is just very different from someone who has take[n] up murder as a hobby. The first description might apply to you right now without your knowing, whereas the second (hopefully ^^) clearly doesn't.

> … speaking loosely and not adhering to the legal definition of innocence until proven guilty

You make it sound like that is a minor detail, but it's in fact a cornerstone of a Rechtsstaat (apparently there is no English word for this? see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat).


It's definitely not a minor detail in terms of the law, how it is applied, and the moral dimensions of same.

I don't have to walk far down the street though to find people loosely throwing around terms that suggest guilt or innocence completely divorced from the legal definition. Your streets may differ from mine.


Replace "murder" with "homosexual relations in a country where it is punishable by death" and tell me you still stand by your argument. Are you okay with government using cloud-based computing hobbies to find and kill homosexuals in their country? If not - why? If it is illegal they shouldn't be doing it, right?

Tools used for "good" can also be used for "evil" and something so many people fail to account for is how a "good" tool can be misappropriated. This is why there are so many restrictions on how the police can operate. For example, restrictions or bans on entrapment, wiretapping, "bugging" a home, requiring a suspect to provide incriminating evidence against themselves, etc. We recognize that some bad people will get away because of these restrictions. A seemingly smaller portion of us seem to recognize why we let those bad people get away rather than erode our freedoms even more.

People who defend their freedoms have an unfortunate burden of defending the freedoms of the worst people imaginable.


I think the replacement argument breaks down because I don't expect the countries I'm aware of where homosexuality is punishable by death to have anything like the protections for personal liberty that Arkansas does.

I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but from a practical standpoint, my argument would be something along the lines of a similar sentiment to Mr. Schmidt: "If you're homosexual in a country where that's a death sentence, please keep your head down until you can get out. Learn how to encrypt everyting. Don't rely on any third-party providers that you can't trust. Don't hand the murderer your own noose." And that sucks, because it's brutally unfair, but "brutally unfair" is assumed when talking about nations where homosexuality is punishable by death.

From a moral standpoint, my argument would be something along the lines of "Murder is a horrible evil and homosexuality is not. We should be able to reserve more tools legally to track down murderers than to pry into someone's personal sexual preferences, and I'm lucky to live in a country where (generally) things are seen that way, most of the time." We already do reserve more tools legally to investigate a criminal case; privacy can be encroached upon by existing common-law methods. The question of interest is really, are your water logs and Alexa conversations priest-and-spouse-like or best-friend-like?

Possibly more importantly: how does the replacement argument map to practical action? If we decide that we don't want to allow collected logs to be subpoenaed for murder trials (or we decide logs should be legally banned from being collectible---that'll make a lot of personal-improvement projects illegal, but let's entertain it for a second), how will that help homosexuals in countries where it's punishable by the death penalty? Those countries will look at our worst-case-scenario reasoning, say "That's nice," and then go on to log citizen activities anyway. The "should we" argument has absolutely no bearing on the capability argument, and if we're going to bring other nations into the risk model, we have to talk capability.


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.


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.


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.


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

This. Eric Schmidt should release its own full dataset to show us that he thinks this is true. Unless he is doing things he should not be doing in the first place ?


If Eric Schmidt is ever suspected of murder, I would expect his full dataset to be called for.


Eric Schmidt did not mention murder in his quote.


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.

Pretty sure he regrets saying that in public.

But yeah, as I said in the previous story about this case, I've given up a lot of privacy in the past 10 years for convenience. I'm aware of the ramifications though. Many people just aren't thinking about the consequences.


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...


A warrant is not the same as a subpoena. But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea. If people and corporations don't assert their rights against the will of the state, they erode the foundation of our shared liberties.


I'm not a lawyer, so excuse me if I'm asking trivial things:

To obtain a search warrant or arrest warrant, the law enforcement officer must demonstrate probable cause that a search or seizure is justified. An authority, usually a magistrate, will consider the totality of circumstances and determine whether to issue the warrant. [1]

I agree to your statement, if there is no search warrant. But in this case an authority already decided that the search is justified. What use are search warrants then if they can all be refused?

I understand, that even a magistrate or whatever can make errors. But if this happens a lot, the consequence will be, that search warrants are issued without second thought and the person/company affected by the search should always deny it first.

I'm all for privacy and defending individual rights, but cases like this make a farce out of court orders and the whole jurisdictional process.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment


> But if this happens a lot, the consequence will be, that search warrants are issued without second thought and the person/company affected by the search should always deny it first.

I think you'll find the vast majority of search warrants aren't even read by the judge signing them. When I owned a (hosting) company it was blatantly obvious reading them, and we had a policy of challenging them when possible.

The whole search warrant/subpoena process is a joke. There is essentially no oversight on law enforcement whatsoever here and the whole trope of "but a judge reviewed it!" is a complete and utter outright lie in many cases.


I'm not a lawyer, either. But I don't think it's the case that any warrant can just be refused, more that the warrant itself can be challenged based on a lot of factors, like the burden placed on a company to deliver some evidence.


Do you mean farce out of the judicial process?

It seems fairly likely that jurisdiction is what Amazon ended up challenging.


>But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea

Very much agree, because there's a difference between being "innocent" and actually innocent. Only the former matters, it's subjective (jury/judge) and unknown to everyone but you, ex ante.

Sometimes the police are more invested in finding a criminal rather than the criminal.


Usually a warrant will only last a short time and the issuer must name a specific thing they are looking for. In this case it's clear that they only need to provide the data for a specific person.

I also believe that Amazon could provide that data alone. So what makes them refuse?


Because if they don't, I'll tell all my friends that Alexa is being used to monitor their speech for law enforcement, and to not say anything incriminating around one.


>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?

Contrary to what others on this thread are saying, no. You cannot deny them entry. At that point, in that situation, the police are authorized to use force to exercise that warrant and you have no recourse but to cooperate. I don't know where people get this silly idea that they can refuse. That's how you turn a peaceful affair into police busting down the door, legally shooting your alarmed dog, wrestling you into handcuffs, and executing the warrant by force. I wouldn't be surprised if your refusal to cooperate would be admissible as evidence of mens rea. Don't be stupid.

The kind of warrant that Amazon is contesting is different than the kind that police show up at your door with. They could get one of those for Amazon too: a warrant to enter Amazon's buildings and seize servers, hard drives, papers, etc. If Amazon itself, or its employees, was suspected of criminal wrongdoing, and being investigated by a police force with physical jurisdiction over the locations to be searched, that would happen. Businesses are searched this way all the time.


> 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.


> This is why you call a lawyer as soon as the police arrive w/ a warrant or ask you questions.

Pragmatic question regarding this type of advice. It's easy to say "call a lawyer", sure, but like many Americans under age 35, I do not presently have a lawyer in a meaningful sense of the term. (I had one once, for a very specific matter regarding a visa for another country - it was four-figure expensive - that relationship is now over.)

Suppose the police show up at my door in half an hour. What do I actually do? Or, suppose that they're not showing up in half an hour but I'd like to be generally prepared. What steps can I take to do so while keeping the up-front pre-police-raid 'expensive' in the low to middle three figure sums, or thereabouts?


1.) Talk to the lawyer you previously had a relationship with (assuming you think he is competent) and ask him for recommendations for a criminal lawyer. Keep the name(s) handy.

2.) In a real pinch, call your local public defender. They likely will not be able to get someone out to your place ASAP but they may be able to offer some advice. You can always follow-up with private counsel later.


I imagine very few of us have a lawyer on retainer. Meet one at a party that you could call for advice in a pinch.

The other alternative is LegalShield and such services.


Yes, if your legal team denies it as overly broad.

So this only applies to businesses and wealthy individuals? If this is the case, we already lost the fight for equal rights.

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

This is a murder case. How could someone value their hobbies and freedom above the jurisdictional process?

Not a great example of having nothing to hide, but a great example of a broad search that found an entirely different crime.

They do not have to fish for a crime. The crime is given, but the circumstances are probably not.

I just have the feeling, that refusing to provide the data to solve cases like this will probably hurt everyone more in the long run. If the police cannot get the data this way, they will probably try another way or change the law.


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.


Three crimes a day is probably a reference to this book: https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...

(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.


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


Thanks. !


The vehicle code alone for my state is nearly three inches thick. If they want to pull you over, you will almost certainly give them a "valid" reason if they follow you for even just a few minutes. A friend of mine in law enforcement demonstrated this to me once while riding in my car. He had racked up four or five things on the car ahead of us (tailgating, crossing the fog line or center barrier, failure to signal within x yards of a turn, etc.) in under a mile.


I don't have a citation, but I think the CATO institute put it at 7 felonies a day.


You left out the part where you also want an actual "peer reviewed study". Must be new to HN.


Basically "yes if you are wealthy"


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

Well, if you live in Seattle and the police are from Arkansas, yeah. They can ask, just like i could ask to search your house. Out of the state that grants them authority, they're just guys with a piece of paper.


There are various tiers of customer information, specified by law that have different requirements legally to obtain. In many cases a broad search warrant doesn't justify the release of what would be considered sensitive data. The more sensitive the data is, the more difficult it is to obtain legally. I highly doubt Amazon is "refusing". They have a legal team and are simply enforcing the protections specified by law. If the Police can build a compelling case as to why they need the information and jump through the appropriate hoops, Amazon will turn it over. In many cases the Police just want the company to cooperate because there are many investigations, and only so many man hours to put towards each case. Amazon is doing the right thing here, and even if the suspect is guilty, I highly doubt his Amazon Echo recordings are going to be useful in the investigation. It is a no stone left unturned kind of thing though.


> 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?

Why don't you take the advice from someone who knows what he is talking about. If you're in on a hurry make sure you see part two:

Part one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= interrogation (Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defence attorney)

Part two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE (Mr. George Bruch police officer, years of experienced in suspect interviews for the police and US navy.)


The first link got truncated. Should be this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik


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?


There is a strong argument for them to still refuse: suppose the suspect somehow gamed the system (e.g. by translating the voice via radio), and the suspect is acquitted based on this data, and proceeds to do his evil things — think about the bad PR your company would get! No thanks, I'd rather stick to the safe and rather popular policy of preserving privacy.


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


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


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


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?


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


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.


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


From my POV, cops tend to ignore anything that doesn't point to "guilty". There would be no benefit to the accused in this case. IANAL, yada, yada.


That's absurd. Investigative police work is the process of ruling out possible suspects to arrive at the truth.


That might be the definition of "investigative police work", yes. That's not what I've observed in practice. And those that know better than I advise against giving up evidence with the idea that it will "help your case"; re: the "don't talk to the police" video that is so often referenced here.


So you think that, for instance, if the police are investigating you in connection with a bank robbery while you were in another country speaking at a conference, you should not tell them that?

What about if you are wanted for questioning about a murder which involved dragging the body a significant distance while you were in the hospital recovering from chemotherapy? Still don't talk to the cops?


Still don't talk to the cops?

Nope. While you're busy playing "what if...", I'm dialing a lawyer. Should that trained professional advise talking to the adversarial trained professionals, then I would do so, and not before.

I don't how it is where you're at, but in the U. S. cops have demonstrated time and again (and I've seen with my own eyes) that they are not concerned about truth and justice, but arrest and conviction rates. I'm not walking into that scenario running my mouth without professional advice.


On TV maybe. In real life investigative police work is gathering enough evidence on a suspect that a prosecutor will take the case.


You really think that "in real life" the police just arrest whoever is the first suspect and don't investigate farther? That has not been my experience.


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.


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.


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?


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.


This had a major thread at 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.


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.


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???


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...


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"


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.


While technically an accurate description, I generally don't think of encryption that terminates at a service provider as "end to end". I usually think of end to end encryption in the sense of messaging, where it is encrypted when one human sends it and is decrypted when another human opens it.


By that definition, encryption for a cloud-based home automation system is impossible, right?

"Here's the command from the Echo Dot." "Great, what should I do?" "Can't tell you; it's encrypted."


I think techncially it's possible for certain operations using homomorphic encryption[1], where operations performed on encrypted data result in an appropriate transformation of the plaintext data, but I am fairly certain that's not widely used, and I think Amazon would make a big deal out of it if it were used with the Echo.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption


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


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


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


If they weren't encrypted, could they not just get the data via 'other channels' anyway?


Some arkansas cops investigating run-of-the-mill violent crime aren't going to be able to get access to retroactive packet captures of this guys connection.

Even the NSA probably couldn't get such packet captures, but they'd be able to get the data from Amazons end.


The NSA may be a different story.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora


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.


I think the bottom line is Amazon thinks that "Amazon refuses to hand your data over" sounds better than "Amazon Echo data used against man in murder trial".

The latter is likely to deter future purchases and cause many to toss their holiday Alexa gift in a drawer.

More importantly, their lawyers think they can get away with refusing the search warrant as too broad or claiming it sets a precedent of invading privacy.


nevermind your smartphone


...or you live somewhere with glass windows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_microphone


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.


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


You still have to distribute and read those sensors.


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


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.


But when you defend cowardice and the status quo, you don't need arguments. You just need to smirk and say something utterly dumb like the comment about glass windows, and you're mostly golden.


>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

Yeah, but this is entirely ridiculous. It's trivial for anyone with access to the device to verify that it most likely doesn't do that.


Not if you're a conspiracy theorist and don't trust anybody -- then everybody always has a reason to listen in on your mundane conversations!


I like your qualifier, "most likely".

How would one determine if it is not buffering and compressing data client-side for later transmission during "firmware" updates?

Additionally, who has setup an automated testing framework for such things after each firmware upgrade?

How many firmware upgrades have there been for the Echo?

Also, how do we know that your Echo and my Echo are running the same firmware, and will always run the same firmware version?


>I like your qualifier, "most likely".

Yeah, it gets harder when you need to be sure.

>How would one determine if it is not buffering and compressing data client-side for later transmission during "firmware" updates?

AFAIK you can root the device pretty easily, so you should be at least able to verify that the main OS of the device isn't doing this.

>Also, how do we know that your Echo and my Echo are running the same firmware, and will always run the same firmware version?

Boot them both from a read only SD card.


> AFAIK you can root the device pretty easily, so you should be at least able to verify that the main OS of the device isn't doing this.

And if it doesn't, you still don't know. So why even bother? Why not simply throw it and anyone peddling it out of the window? That's making sure rather than derping about.


Do you really have 0 microphones in your house? What about speakers, those are basically microphones too?

If you have access to the main OS it's also relatively easy to verify that the secretly recorded audio data isn't being uploaded anywhere, unless these devices have some secret radio equipment in them.


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...


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


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

(I am not lawyer)


Are they breaking a law when, I assume, I agreed to let them do this in the first place,?


If in fact they are recording; we don't know.

And I don't know what laws might be broken were they to do so.

Note: I'm talking about general recording. You can tell from the Alexa app that they keep the queries themselves since you can review them yourself.

Do the police hope the accused said to the device, "Alexa, how do I murder someone?"


What laws specifically?


In some states you need to notify all parties (or get their consent) before you record their voice.

EULA does not cover it, your visitors did not signed it. Only way is to put label: "This area is monitored by CCTV"...

Also recording phone calls could be illegal. Amazon should put disclaimer before every conversation :-)

me: "Alexa"

al: "This conversation might be recorded for monitoring and training purposes"

me: "Call Dad"




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: