Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Shares Data With Arkansas Prosecutor In Murder Case (ap.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Associated Press: Amazon dropped its fight against a subpoena issued in an Arkansas murder case after the defendant said he wouldn't mind if the technology giant shared information that may have been gathered by an Amazon Echo smart speaker. James Andrew Bates has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of Victor Collins, who was found dead in a hot tub at Bates' home. In paperwork filed Monday, Bates said Amazon could share the information and Amazon said it handed over material on Friday. The Echo "listens" for key words and may have recorded what went on before Collins was found dead in November 2015. Amazon had fought a subpoena, citing its customers' privacy rights. A hearing had been set for Wednesday on whether any information gathered was even pertinent.
Echo is their deus ex machina
Starting with "Amazon shares..." makes it look like Amazon is the story. It's not. Headline should have started with "Defendant agrees to share...".
Not sure why it's a big deal, though - the search and seizure amendment prohibits doing that without due process. Looks like due process was being followed here.
If Amazon Echo records voice in the home , and there is a law in California that you are not allowed to record voice without consent , are all Amazon Echo customers in California breaking the law? Probably their guests being murdered didn't know they were also being recorded.
*playing Halo*
<VC> Alexi, have someone kill this bastard who keeps blowing me up with sticky grenades!
<Ekho> ok
*VC laughs*
And that's why you don't buy the knockoff version on eBay! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
And that's why these companies need to take a leaf out of Apple's book - don't collect data if you don't want to share it with law enforcement. Siri doesn't record you, and doesn't transmit anything to a server until it locally recognises "Hey Siri", or you physically press a button.
Of course, all these other companies are busy trying to mine all your user data, so they're busy transmitting and storing everything they possibly can. Then they try to pull the "user privacy" defence when they themselves have been busy violating your privacy.
Are you making claims beyond your knowledge? The device runs on proprietary software. By default we have no idea when the device is listening (most likely all the time, otherwise how would it know when someone uttered the 'wake word'?), we have no idea if there's a recording made, and we have no idea where that recording goes (users certainly don't get to control where the recordings go somewhere or if any such recordings are made).
Perhaps this is why it's a better idea to manually bring up a website & order something, or (by extension for TVs which are now "smart") not get a TV running proprietary software with a camera and mic aimed at the user...often in their bedroom aimed at squarely at their bed.
How many unwitting porn stars are there now? Just give us a round figure, so to speak.
Digital Citizen
Here
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
I think he made Alexa promise to kill him.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Another possibility is that there is information in the recordings which may exonerate him, perhaps someone else in the house threatening to kill the victim. The prosecution is required by law to share exculpatory evidence with the defense, even if they don't plan to use it at trial.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Both droids and Iphone have Sirii and Googlle Now
http://saveie6.com/
...it's almost like that thing experts have been screaming at the top of their lungs for a decade (or longer!) have been warning people about.
You sucked on the SaaS titty, and now you get to pay for it with your butthole.
And, as always, it always "begins" with the worst criminals. Pedophiles. Murders. "Think of the children!" they'll say, as they inch closer and closer to sticking a camera inside your anus while calling it "progress" and "freedom."
But if he truly thinks he's innocent, he's got nothing to lose. The worst scenario might be some out of context snippets, but the most likely scenario is nothing of interest. By letting it by admitted, he potentially scores points with a jury, and there might even be something in the recordings that backs him up - wouldn't be the first time.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
"Don't talk to the cops" is good advice when you are being arrested, or pulled over for something because you're not a lawyer, and you don't know all the tricks the cops have.
This guy does have a lawyer though, and the lawyer knows all the tricks, and has determined that it is ok to let the recordings be released. I can't really comment wisely on that topic, but I can pretend to:
*) The lawyer may think that the recordings will help the case.
*) The lawyer may have decided that the recordings would probably be released anyway, so might as well cut to the chase.
*) The lawyer might think the openness will help the case.
*) The lawyer might think his client is guilty and hopes he goes to jail.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think he does. For the same reason that good lawyers tell you to never speak to the police when you've been arrested.
The next headline we can expect:
"James Andrew Bates Faces New Charges from Alexa Disclosures"
This man is an idiot.
Rule #1: If you're guilty, it's imperative to give prosecutors nothing not absolutely required by law.
Rule #2: There are so many laws on the books, you're guilty of something; even if you have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Yes he does have something to lose. And no it doesn't score points with a jury.
Hopfully he has a good lawyer with a plan and he's not just trying to be nice.
Conceding this point now closes a lot of avenues of appeal should his client be found guilty
Does it? Which avenues of appeal does it close off?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
How can he know? Did Amazon let him listen first?
What if after listening to the recordings themselves, the recordings go a long way to prove his innocence? I highly doubt they would concede this point just because "whatever" when amazon was fighting their fight for them.