Hacker News Reader

Comment by politician | Hacker News Reader

The device doesn't start listening when you say the wake word, the device is always listening. It's only the UX that responds when the presence of the wake word is detected. This means that the device is continuously monitoring the environment for the presence of the wake word we know about ("Alexa").

Can the device monitor for other words that trigger other UX sequences? Of course it can!

Can Amazon deliver an OTA update to this network connected device to change behavior after it leaves the factory? There is no reason to believe that they cannot.

So, no, I don't believe the police are wrong here. In fact, I would be in favor of law enforcement having the ability to "tap" these network-attached microphone appliances with a warrant. Then, perhaps, people will begin to understand what they've really bought.

EDIT: Passive monitoring ("listening") is not the same thing as storage ("recording"). In some cases below, these are being conflated.

View on HN

You're making quite a few assumptions.

1) The device is storing any amount of locally recorded audio. So far evidence says no.

2) Amazon would OTA all echos to upload everything it hears. So far evidence says this hasn't happened. It also likely won't because IMO security people monitor these devices more than anything else on the planet. Some I believe for good reasons, the others just want to play gotcha.

3) If 1 and 2 are true, Amazon keeps the data for an extended period of time.

Can we please not tinfoil hat the hell out of these devices like we do the rest of IoT sometimes?

I've responded to your position elsewhere:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13264644

(I think) the argument your parent is making is that Amazon could easily send a software update to a specific Echo to make it record everything it hears.

If at the request of the government, yeah that's a problem unless there is some kind of warrant, right?

I'm all for people being suspicious, but the intent of this was to say "the cops are hoping it might catch something" as in it was accidentally triggered.

If at the request of the government, yeah that's a problem unless there is some kind of warrant, right?

Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

Yes and that's a problem with law not catching up with technology. Unfortunately for many people in the country, other social/financial issues are more important to them.

Or any smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc. This is the world we live in.

Or send audio surveillance data only when it has a legitimate excuse to communicate with Amazon, like, when you're streaming music or making a query.

> In fact, I would be in favor of law enforcement having the ability to "tap" these network-attached microphone appliances with a warrant. Then, perhaps, people will begin to understand what they've really bought.

All your arguments apply equally to any smart phone. It's another network attached microphone. Are you in favor of it there too?

Why not? Seems like a subpoenad record would serve as an effective canary for determining what end user data is actually stored. Taken to the next step, LEA should be able to ask google alone for your browsing history for the last 10 years based on Google Analytics. Storing customer data should be seen as a corporate liability if you're not upfront about what is stored, used and how.

Should the police be able to enter any house with locks they can pick? I suppose that would educate people, too.

edit: I misread the comment as, "without a warrant"! Ugh

I don't understand your rebuttal.

Are you disputing that LE does not have the ability to request a wire tap from a judge with a warrant?

Wouldn't you want the police be able to intervene when they hear or observe shouting or fighting through an open door or window?

Are you suggesting that a network-attached microphone is not equivalent to an open window? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine)

>Wouldn't you want the police be able to intervene when they hear or observe shouting or fighting through an open door or window?

Different things. In a closed room, there is expectation of privacy. It is not the same for what can be seen from an open window. Also, there is no assurance that LE won't misuse this to crush any dissent or silence somebody they don't like. It is easy to take something said at home out of context or doctor it to sound like something else.

I think the media have made it clear to the public that there's no expectation of privacy around these devices, and that there would be a hard case to make in court that someone was so insulated from the media that they wouldn't have any knowledge of what those products could be enabled to do with full, legal collaboration between law enforcement and the manufacturer.

This argument will not stand in the courts. Data collection without consent is illegal, which is why there is so much controversy around the stingray things. Getting a warrant to look at the data may be legal, but collecting the said data without consent is illegal in the first place.

I, for one, do not want the police coming to "shouting". Talk about a nanny state.

Agreed.

I meant to convey the idea of imminent and threatening speech.

It's certainly not equivalent. "Third-party doctrine" is extremely bad law that ignores the notion of private relationship. The law even recognizes some notions of private conversations (with your lawyer, and with your doctor), but ignores others (with your cloud provider) because the law is older than the cloud and the government loves making power grabs.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is right to challenge it. I fear that she is one of a narrow generation that is young enough to understand digital technology, and old enough to remember the right to privacy in personal effects.

Third-party doctrine is not actual law, and challenges only exist as 4th Amendment cases on specific uses (i.e. not the doctrine as a whole). While Sotomayor is right to raise the issue, sadly her words don't constitute action on the topic.

They already can, with a warrant. The lock need not be picked, they'll just bust down the door.

But when you bust the door the owner knows you did that. It's more insidious when they get in covertly to install microphones, search the house and plant substances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com