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.
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
"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."
Google lets you see/hear everything they've recorded from you. And lets you delete it too if you wish.
Deleting it will decrease their effectiveness at recognizing what you say. They use your voice history to "learn" your specific speech patterns, helping recognize future voice queries. But as with most things Google, they leave the choice to you, unlike the other services.