Amazon must give up Echo recordings in double murder case, judge rules

New Hampshire judge orders data handover in 2017 stabbing case.

Read the whole story

 

[MobiusPizza]

I understand the request with metadata such as phone pairings, but audio recordings I don't understand. Does it mean Amazon Echo devices not only transmit the audio data to server for processing (looking for keywords and contexts) , the server stores the raw audio?

 

[Mr. Fusion]

I think Amazon has the right idea but has confused the law.

As I understand, the Echo belonged to the victim. That negates the privacy right Amazon is claiming.

 

[Rysta]

I think Amazon has the right idea but has confused the law.

As I understand, the Echo belonged to the victim. That negates the privacy right Amazon is claiming.

Seems more like they don't want to admit to saving recordings when the wake word isn't issued.

 

[aurispector]

I understand the request with metadata such as phone pairings, but audio recordings I don't understand. Does it mean Amazon Echo devices not only transmit the audio data to server for processing (looking for keywords and contexts) , the server stores the raw audio?

I guess we are going to find out. We desperately need clear privacy protections even in our own homes.

In this case the crime is horrible and searching things like security recordings is a long established precedent. Other than simply not owning one, consumers have no way of controlling what is being collected.

Now that some cable companies are putting microphones in the TV remote it's time to make the entire thing MUCH more transparent and under direct control of the consumer.

 

[I am not your friend]

I understand the request with metadata such as phone pairings, but audio recordings I don't understand. Does it mean Amazon Echo devices not only transmit the audio data to server for processing (looking for keywords and contexts) , the server stores the raw audio?

There goes all those bullshit privacy guarantees. Welcome all conspiracies.

 

[DarthSlack]

I think Amazon has the right idea but has confused the law.

As I understand, the Echo belonged to the victim. That negates the privacy right Amazon is claiming.

Seems more like they don't want to admit to saving recordings when the wake word isn't issued.

The Alexa TOS makes it pretty clear they store a lot of your audio. It's less clear who owns that audio but I suspect it isn't the person doing the speaking.

 

[bri2000]

I think Amazon has the right idea but has confused the law.

As I understand, the Echo belonged to the victim. That negates the privacy right Amazon is claiming.

Seems more like they don't want to admit to saving recordings when the wake word isn't issued.

That seems quite likely.

Helping solve a double murder is obviously good but, commercially, I very much doubt they want there to confirm that they’re potentially recording everything that goes on in your home. It’s interesting that they aren’t, or so far as I can see from the linked story don’t seem to be, denying the recordings exists.

Even if Amazon are allowed to keep the recordings under the TOS, hardly anyone thinks about that. Playing a detailed recording of a murder in open court might bring home to customers exactly how much privacy they’ve actually given up.

 

[Rysta]

I think Amazon has the right idea but has confused the law.

As I understand, the Echo belonged to the victim. That negates the privacy right Amazon is claiming.

Seems more like they don't want to admit to saving recordings when the wake word isn't issued.

The Alexa TOS makes it pretty clear they store a lot of your audio. It's less clear who owns that audio but I suspect it isn't the person doing the speaking.

Oh damn, definitely crossing that off the Christmas list then. 90% of my ads being designer (and sometimes used) underwear due to buying aussiebums once is already bad enough.

 

[SavedByTechnology]

Welp, now I know what NOT to get for Christmas.

Edit: Ninja’d by Rysta

 

[Thr2hrmrf]

"Amazon does not seek to obstruct any lawful investigation, but rather seeks to protect the privacy rights of its customers when the government is seeking their data from Amazon, especially when that data may include expressive content protected by the First Amendment," company lawyers wrote at the time.

I've never thought of it until reading that; Do deceased people who were murdered still have a right to privacy and first amendment rights?

It also sounds to me that Amazon has been storing the audio and data unknown to the customers, so isn't that a violation of the customers privacy rights?

 

[TheFu]

Amazon should take this as a hint to include an Emergency RECORD EVERYTHING mode.

If I'm being attacked, yelling "Alexa Emergency Record" is something I'd appreciate leaving behind. By using that phrase, Amazon would have my approval to share that recording with law enforcement.

This is an opportunity for all privacy sucking devices to do something useful.

 

[TheNewShiny]

I think Amazon has the right idea but has confused the law.

As I understand, the Echo belonged to the victim. That negates the privacy right Amazon is claiming.

Seems more like they don't want to admit to saving recordings when the wake word isn't issued.

The Alexa TOS makes it pretty clear they store a lot of your audio.

That's true, but it doesn't mention wholesale recording of all audio. If you go to the FAQ from that page, you'll read the following:

Is Alexa recording all my conversations?
No. Echo devices are designed to detect only your chosen wake word (Alexa, Amazon, Computer or Echo). The device detects the wake word by identifying acoustic patterns that match the wake word. No audio is stored or sent to the cloud unless the device detects the wake word (or Alexa is activated by pressing a button).

So unless they're blatantly lying, they won't have recordings of the event.

 

[Excors]

I understand the request with metadata such as phone pairings, but audio recordings I don't understand. Does it mean Amazon Echo devices not only transmit the audio data to server for processing (looking for keywords and contexts) , the server stores the raw audio?

The Alexa phone app shows a list of every request you made (starting from whenever you said "Alexa") and has a button to play back the audio, so it's obvious that it records and stores that on the servers.

It doesn't upload audio if you didn't say "Alexa" (or something similar enough to trigger the algorithm) - if it did then you'd find out about it from easily repeatable experiments with a network traffic monitor, rather than having to infer it from technically vague court documents.

 

[wagnerrp]

I understand the request with metadata such as phone pairings, but audio recordings I don't understand. Does it mean Amazon Echo devices not only transmit the audio data to server for processing (looking for keywords and contexts) , the server stores the raw audio?

The Alexa phone app shows a list of every request you made (starting from whenever you said "Alexa") and has a button to play back the audio, so it's obvious that it records and stores that on the servers.

It doesn't upload audio if you didn't say "Alexa" (or something similar enough to trigger the algorithm) - if it did then you'd find out about it from easily repeatable experiments with a network traffic monitor, rather than having to infer it from technically vague court documents.

Not to mention the implications of felony wiretapping...

 

[wagnerrp]

Is Alexa recording all my conversations?
No. Echo devices are designed to detect only your chosen wake word (Alexa, Amazon, Computer or Echo). The device detects the wake word by identifying acoustic patterns that match the wake word. No audio is stored or sent to the cloud unless the device detects the wake word (or Alexa is activated by pressing a button).

So unless they're blatantly lying, they won't have recordings of the event.

If they had guests over, the guests may have used the device, or maybe overheard the guests or intruder while the owner was using it. In either case, it could give them leads on who had been over, as a potential suspect, or as someone who may have witnessed something.

 

[ThinkingMore]

So unless they're blatantly lying, they won't have recordings of the event.

And if they have recordings, is Alexa to be treated as a witness to a murder?

 

[xelitus]

Murder evidence collection aside... Just another reason I leave my echo unplugged when I'm not listening to music.

 

[ricardoRI]

I understand the request with metadata such as phone pairings, but audio recordings I don't understand. Does it mean Amazon Echo devices not only transmit the audio data to server for processing (looking for keywords and contexts) , the server stores the raw audio?

The Alexa phone app shows a list of every request you made (starting from whenever you said "Alexa") and has a button to play back the audio, so it's obvious that it records and stores that on the servers.

It doesn't upload audio if you didn't say "Alexa" (or something similar enough to trigger the algorithm) - if it did then you'd find out about it from easily repeatable experiments with a network traffic monitor, rather than having to infer it from technically vague court documents.

Not to mention the implications of felony wiretapping...

Why "felony wiretapping"? You bought it to listen to you. You read the TOS, or should have.

To maximise ease of use, it probably accepts a wide latitude of sounds similar to the wake words, which is then compared to the sounds after the the wake word to see if it appears to be an actual command, or just random noise/conversation. Amazon would want to store the miscues to improve their listening algorithm.

 

[JohnTitor]

Shouldn’t wireshark be able to put to rest the speculation over whether these type of devices are recording outside the wake word?

 

[Deleted member 1]

The interesting reveal will be if there actually are any recordings beyond commands issued to an Alexa device. Most likely the DA hopes to establish the presence of the suspect or a timeline based on when the women last used it. For that matter, have they subpoenaed the ISP for any usage records? Of course, it was almost 2 years ago now. Presumably if they did or wanted to do that, it would have had to be pretty quickly after the murders.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Shouldn’t wireshark be able to put to rest the speculation over whether these type of devices are recording outside the wake word?

I'm pretty sure people have confirmed that, unless the devices are a lot trickier than expected. Though I can guarantee they record outside the wake word, because mine kept hearing unrelated words and activating when I didn't want it to do so.

 

[dwrd]

How dare they demand such information without due process!!!!! zomgwtfbbq!!!1!

Oh, wait, it's a court. Cough it up, Amazon.

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

So unless they're blatantly lying, they won't have recordings of the event.

And if they have recordings, is Alexa to be treated as a witness to a murder?

Bailiff: Alexa; Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Alexa: I do. And I truly believe that you'll find the Amazon Prime original program Jack Ryan ... staring John Krasinski who previously starred in The Office ... to be a bold and thrilling new series.

 

[Sarty]

a spokesperson told the Associated Press that it would not give up any data "without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us."

This seems totally reasonable and sensible to me. Amazon doesn't want to get into the business of deciding what law enforcement uses are necessary or valid, and there's no reason to think they'd be particularly good at making that decision. It's wildly outside their core competencies. "Issue a subpoena and we'll send you the recording" puts this onus on the law enforcement system, where it belongs.

 

[jfconde]

I think Amazon has the right idea but has confused the law.

As I understand, the Echo belonged to the victim. That negates the privacy right Amazon is claiming.

Their rights in the recording would pass to their next of kin. Presumably their heirs would be willing to give police permission to access them.

I don't think the police want to get permission though, I think they would rather establish a precedent that they can get these records anytime just by asking. Solving a double murder is just the kind of case to help push a precedent through.

 

[stine]

I understand the request with metadata such as phone pairings, but audio recordings I don't understand. Does it mean Amazon Echo devices not only transmit the audio data to server for processing (looking for keywords and contexts) , the server stores the raw audio?

That's what we're going to find out, aren't we.

 

[stine]

I think Amazon has the right idea but has confused the law.

As I understand, the Echo belonged to the victim. That negates the privacy right Amazon is claiming.

the dead ladies had privacy rights at the time of the recording.

And now they're dead. If their estate wants to hire an attorney to prevent the police from finding their killer, I'm sure they'll do it.

 

[jfconde]

Shouldn’t wireshark be able to put to rest the speculation over whether these type of devices are recording outside the wake word?

Wireshark would detect things flowing out of box, not things stored/processed inside. And if the things are encrypted, as they probably are, all you would get is amounts and timing of data.

There's plenty of processing power in these devices to recognize any mention of 20 or 30 thousand words/phrases that Amazon decided were "interesting". Daily reports sent up about these mentions would only be a few kilobytes in size, and could be combined with normal traffic. No way at all to determine if they were doing that.

 

[Nachowarrior]

I think Amazon has the right idea but has confused the law.

As I understand, the Echo belonged to the victim. That negates the privacy right Amazon is claiming.

the dead ladies had privacy rights at the time of the recording.

And now they're dead. If their estate wants to hire an attorney to prevent the police from finding their killer, I'm sure they'll do it.

that's the thing about having rights. The estate shouldn't have to take action in order to stop an violation, the violation cannot happen without a proper warrant, and without respecting the privacy rights of the current holder, posthumous rights can be a tricky thing...
"oh, you're dead now, we can now legally collect and release everything you ever said or did in the presence of any electronic device."

can you imagine how many families would be destroyed, relationships set aflame, and how much dirt would come back from the entire contents of your lifespan were to be released all at once right after you died? That is an egregious amount of disrespect to privacy rights, and disrespectful to family and friends.
eg: you cheated 30 years ago, now you're dead... and it's been released because it was recorded on devices and stored at the nsa or at another company and now the court system wants to reveal the contents for whatever reason... How is that going to affect your children? your grand children? what if your dad wasn't your dad after all... what does that imply for your relationship with your mother? etc. so on and so forth. ie: we have privacy rights for a great many reasons. My outlining is just one. If the court wants it, they need a warrant, and it needs to be specific. we don't need to set "automatic access" for the police, that's just dumb. Case by case basis please.

due process is due process.

 

[Mr. Fusion]

"Amazon does not seek to obstruct any lawful investigation, but rather seeks to protect the privacy rights of its customers when the government is seeking their data from Amazon, especially when that data may include expressive content protected by the First Amendment," company lawyers wrote at the time.

I've never thought of it until reading that; Do deceased people who were murdered still have a right to privacy and first amendment rights?

It also sounds to me that Amazon has been storing the audio and data unknown to the customers, so isn't that a violation of the customers privacy rights?

First, there are few privacy rights in a criminal case. Especially when it comes to third party recordings.

Second, storing data helps Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and every other platform, program, and app that depends upon predictive technology. The problem is we want them to predict our needs but we don't want them to know or retain the data they require.

It sucks to be me but I don't use any predictive technology if I can help it. When I use Google maps, I make my own route.

 

[wagnerrp]

I understand the request with metadata such as phone pairings, but audio recordings I don't understand. Does it mean Amazon Echo devices not only transmit the audio data to server for processing (looking for keywords and contexts) , the server stores the raw audio?

The Alexa phone app shows a list of every request you made (starting from whenever you said "Alexa") and has a button to play back the audio, so it's obvious that it records and stores that on the servers.

It doesn't upload audio if you didn't say "Alexa" (or something similar enough to trigger the algorithm) - if it did then you'd find out about it from easily repeatable experiments with a network traffic monitor, rather than having to infer it from technically vague court documents.

Not to mention the implications of felony wiretapping...

Why "felony wiretapping"? You bought it to listen to you. You read the TOS, or should have.

If the TOS states they only record after a wake word, and then they record at all times, then they're recording when no involved parties have given consent.

 

[alex_d]

I wonder why Amazon is so intent on getting everyone to own one. They’re always on sale, always given away as freebies. Soon you’ll see ads that you’ll get airline miles as soon as you accept to receive one for free.

 

[jnk1000]

I understand the request with metadata such as phone pairings, but audio recordings I don't understand. Does it mean Amazon Echo devices not only transmit the audio data to server for processing (looking for keywords and contexts) , the server stores the raw audio?

I guess we are going to find out. We desperately need clear privacy protections even in our own homes.

...especially in our homes.

 

[Fatesrider]

I understand the request with metadata such as phone pairings, but audio recordings I don't understand. Does it mean Amazon Echo devices not only transmit the audio data to server for processing (looking for keywords and contexts) , the server stores the raw audio?

Unless it's physically turned off, all sounds are transmitted.

What Amazon likely doesn't want the customers to know is that those sounds are probably stored, and analyzed for information to sell people more things. I also expect that the sounds are thrown through some AI's to improve understanding and a host of other things. I DON'T expect that people listen to them, unless there's some human/machine correction going on for the AI analysis, and even then, I expect the recordings are anonymized.

At least, the paranoid side of me says that's what they probably do. There are too many anecdotal stories about how Echo did something weird involving sending messages that weren't intended to be sent, or people not knowing it was "listening" for them to NOT store the recordings.

After all, if there were no recordings to turn over, then they could just say so. That they turned over similar data in the past tells me they probably DO record everything.

As for this:

Amazon did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment on Saturday morning, but a spokesperson told the Associated Press that it would not give up any data "without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us."

It seems to me a court order IS a valid and binding legal demand that's incumbent upon Amazon to obey. I'm all about privacy rights, but at the same time, the fourth amendment provides a constitutional, legal avenue for the government to acquire private information. The information doesn't "belong" to Amazon in the first place. They merely collect it. It belongs to the customer (since, IIRC, the customer can wipe it at will, at least according to Amazon).

I expect Amazon will comply on the downlow so that they don't scream to their customers that their conversations are ALL recorded as long as the thing is on and connected. As for proving this, I imagine a device by device data stream analysis through the router would probably tell a user if it "streams" their home sounds to Amazon. Not having one, I can't do that test myself.

Personally, the whole concept of a listening device, benignly intended or not, just doesn't appeal to me and I think the concept is utterly creepy. I'd love a "personal assistant", but not one controlled by a corporation interested in my using it to sell me more shit.

 

[Mr. Fusion]

I think Amazon has the right idea but has confused the law.

As I understand, the Echo belonged to the victim. That negates the privacy right Amazon is claiming.

Their rights in the recording would pass to their next of kin. Presumably their heirs would be willing to give police permission to access them.

I don't think the police want to get permission though, I think they would rather establish a precedent that they can get these records anytime just by asking. Solving a double murder is just the kind of case to help push a precedent through.

No. Any evidence in a crime scene may be confiscated by the police, regardless of who owns it. The rightful owners may claim the objects after any trial, but they may not interfere before the trial. In the meantime though, the police do not need permission.

Information and objects outside of the crime scene are still subject to a court order (warrant or subpoena). That includes any cell phone location or usage data, documents, automobiles, guns, personal DNA, etc.

This is more of a Amazon doesn't want anyone to know what or how much information they keep.

 

[whquaint]

This is the most interesting topic of the year to me. I mean, think of all the iPhones listening for "hey Siri" right now! It's got murder! It's got privacy issues! Big Brothers Amazon, Apple, Google, law enforcement! The mind reels!

This is the future folks. Ready or not.

PS: If I'm murdered, I hereby give permission to provide all of my recordings to law enforcement. That's assuming I have any rights to my own recordings -_-. TBD by a court near you!