Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Won't Say If It Hands Your Echo Data To the Government (zdnet.com)

Zack Whittaker reports via ZDNet of how Amazon still won't say whether or not it hands your Echo data to the government -- three years after the Echo was first released. From the report: Amazon has a transparency problem. Three years ago, the retail giant became the last major tech company to reveal how many subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders it received for customer data in a half-year period. While every other tech giant had regularly published its government request figures for years, spurred on by accusations of participation in government surveillance, Amazon had been largely forgotten. Eventually, people noticed and Amazon acquiesced. Since then, Amazon's business has expanded. By its quarterly revenue, it's no longer a retail company -- it's a cloud giant and a device maker. The company's flagship Echo, an "always listening" speaker, collects vast amounts of customer data that's openly up for grabs by the government. But Amazon's bi-annual transparency figures don't want you to know that. In fact, Amazon has been downright deceptive in how it presents the data, obfuscating the figures in its short, but contextless, twice-yearly reports. Not only does Amazon offer the barest minimum of information possible, the company has -- and continues -- to deliberately mislead its customers by actively refusing to clarify how many customers, and which customers, are affected by the data demands it receives.

105 comments

  1. SHHHHH! by BigBunion · · Score: 2

    Your Echo can hear your thoughts as well...

    1. Re:SHHHHH! by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Funny

      They can read my thoughts even through my tin foil hat? Wow!

      Good thing I don't own an Echo.
      Though I have thought about buying an Echo string trimmer . . . . may have to rethink that one.

    2. Re:SHHHHH! by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      They can read my thoughts even through my tin foil hat? Wow!

      You HAVE to upgrade to stay ahead of advancing technology.
      https://smile.amazon.com/Stainless-Unpolished-Finish-backing_type-Thickness/dp/B00CNLZJPA/

      Good thing I don't own an Echo. Though I have thought about buying an Echo string trimmer . . . . may have to rethink that one.

      The same issue again, If your hat leaks they will plant thoughts about buying stuff!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    3. Re:SHHHHH! by msauve · · Score: 1

      Stainless steel? You're a mole for the NSA, right? Wrong stuff - This is what he needs.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:SHHHHH! by rmdingler · · Score: 0

      Essentially, your home's microwave is a Faraday Cage, thus placing the Echo device inside it should allay all fears.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:SHHHHH! by msauve · · Score: 2, Funny

      I keep my Amazon Echo in the Amazon warehouse. It's not only safer, it's cheaper!

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:SHHHHH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can read my thoughts even through my tin foil hat? Wow!

      Good thing I don't own an Echo.
      Though I have thought about buying an Echo string trimmer . . . . may have to rethink that one.

      Echo also makes decent backpack sprayers.

    7. Re:SHHHHH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just keep ours in "The Cone of Silence". We can't hear it, it can't hear us. Perfect!

    8. Re: SHHHHH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too!

    9. Re:SHHHHH! by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Essentially, your home's microwave is a Faraday Cage, thus placing the Echo device inside it should allay all fears.

      Good advice, but incomplete. After placing the Echo in the Faraday, turn said cage on at its highest setting for 10 seconds; that way you've nuked Echo without having had to attain orbit first.

      "I felt a great disturbance in the Cloud, as if millions of Alexas suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced".

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    10. Re:SHHHHH! by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Your Echo can hear your thoughts as well...

      Sort of. After all, it knows my musical tastes, which are part of my thoughts. However, both Amazon and IHeartRadio do an AWFUL job of composing playlists based on starting from one "liked" artist (not as bad as Pandora, but still). After about 20 false starts, all of which spiralled down to "all Nirvana, all the time" after 5-6 songs, I finally found a foundation that keeps things diverse for a couple of hours--The Mekons!

  2. Anyone... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    anyone who puts an omnidirectional mic in their home, tied to big-pig corporate, should expect no privacy.

    Note: cell phones and even laptop mics aren't very omnidirectional. You can also use a cell or laptop with a movable mic cover.

    OTOH, the whole point of a smart speaker is to listen and snoop.

    1. Re:Anyone... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Note: cell phones and even laptop mics aren't very omnidirectional.

      I have participated in many conference calls around a cell phone sitting in the middle of the table. It works pretty well.

      A cellphone is a far bigger privacy hole, and you are just in denial because you have too much self esteem invested in feeling superior by not owning an Echo.

    2. Re:Anyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone who puts an omnidirectional mic in their home, tied to big-pig corporate, should expect no privacy.

      Note: cell phones and even laptop mics aren't very omnidirectional. You can also use a cell or laptop with a movable mic cover.

      OTOH, the whole point of a smart speaker is to listen and snoop.

      Agreed. Still, there might be a market for a less mistrusted version of these devices. The problem is I presume you would need to dedicate a reasonably powerful computer to it, since you would be keeping all processing local, and then only interacting with the rest of the Internet when a command is confirmed. Perhaps it could be something available via apt-get or similar. Then the microphone/speaker component is just connected to the real computer over wifi. Of course if you can get enough local processing to determine when the device is being talked to, then that bit can be done locally, and the actual message sent back to the more powerful system, which could then do a fast wake, process, and then return of the result.

      A house could then have multiple visible nodes, but only one processor node. Multiple houses that share family may be able to link them over a VPN, with appropriate limits. The processing node would maintain the VPN.

      This kind of thing would be the only way I'd have such a system in my house. At that point you may be able to include interface modules, such as something that controls televisions and such, but those are simple enough to be less concerning.

      For instance, do you really need to have an action like, "Turn on lights" have any potential traffic outside your house? Of course for that you probably need a limited network over house wiring, that is available to the processing node, but not the rest of the Internet.

      Out of curiosity what open source projects like this exist? I found this with a 10 second search by a company called MyCroft. link

    3. Re:Anyone... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Try yelling at one across a room -- works less well.

    4. Re:Anyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But a cell phone is usually right near you. Some people sleep next to them at night. Others have it on the coffee table when they are talking to others.

    5. Re:Anyone... by msauve · · Score: 0

      "It works pretty well."

      For definitions of "well" limited to an isolated anechoic chamber.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:Anyone... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      anyone who puts an omnidirectional mic in their home, tied to big-pig corporate, should expect no privacy.

      Note: cell phones and even laptop mics aren't very omnidirectional. You can also use a cell or laptop with a movable mic cover.

      OTOH, the whole point of a smart speaker is to listen and snoop.

      Jokes on them, I hooked up mine to listen to YouTube videos all day long.

    7. Re:Anyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone who puts an omnidirectional mic in their home, tied to big-pig corporate, should expect no privacy.

      Does anyone really even get ideas or facts anymore? Or most anyone. Which would only be about several billion.

      There is definitely a lot going on with all this software and hardware these days. Sometimes I think there will be a meltdown of sorts. I do think there is a spectre of hope though on the horizon.

    8. Re:Anyone... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

      Why is blaming the victim so consistently marked insightful? This is on Amazon.

    9. Re:Anyone... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Note: cell phones and even laptop mics aren't very omnidirectional

      You clearly don't own a cellphone if you think this. Most on the market have no problem at all opening up Google Assistant, Bixbi, or Siri from the otherside of a large living room.

    10. Re:Anyone... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >the whole point of a smart speaker

      is to represent American citizens that elected him to the Senate.

      Speaking of which, only one vote is needed to overcome Shitpie's ShitFCC NN coup d'tete.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    11. Re:Anyone... by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Best way to handle that would be to put the mic in a place where you play random statements with injected activation commands. Some crime series or something - then see if the cops shows up or something.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    12. Re:Anyone... by conquistadorst · · Score: 1

      A cellphone is a far bigger privacy hole, and you are just in denial because you have too much self esteem invested in feeling superior by not owning an Echo.

      You sir, have hit the nail right on the head. Congratulations on your bullseye.

    13. Re:Anyone... by swillden · · Score: 1

      OTOH, the whole point of a smart speaker is to listen and snoop.

      Either this is nonsense, or the makers of smart speakers are blatantly -- and criminally -- lying to consumers, engaging in fraudulent advertising, probably violating SEC regulations on truthful disclosure to investors, and perhaps breaking other laws as well.

      Also, if they were blatantly lying in this way, it would be fairly easy to tell by monitoring the device's network traffic. In fact, no one has found any evidence that any of the devices, from any manufacturer, send audio data back to the servers except when triggered by their hotword. In the case of Google's devices, you can also go to a web site (or use the phone app) to see and play back every piece of audio that was sent to Google by the device. This is how the defect with the Google Home Minis was discovered (there's a button on top that was intended to allow command-triggering by touching the device rather than using the hotword; the button was often triggering when not touched).

      Skepticism and scrutiny of corporate claims is a good idea. But assuming blatant lying about something that (a) is easily checkable and (b) would get the companies in big trouble as well as generate massive negative PR is just silly paranoia.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Anyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have at least some control of my cellphone. My Android device runs a firewall, and the mic isn't touching the radio ROM, so unless it is at the chip level, I have good assurance of what touches it and what doesn't. Especially if my phone is in battery saver mode, where all subsystems are turned off unless actively needed.

      A device like Alexa, one has zero control over. Do you know it is truly off? Well, it isn't. Only way to truly disable it is to toss it in the dumpster. It is a completely closed device that has zero ability for the user to limit what can be done. Of course, this is also perfect for bad guys, since any malware would be completely undetectable to the user.

    15. Re:Anyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creating a situation where cops could potentially show up with the impression of an imminent threat. What could possibly go wrong?

    16. Re:Anyone... by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      anyone who puts an omnidirectional mic in their home, tied to big-pig corporate, should expect no privacy.

      Just to clarify the distinction between "what's practical" vs "what's morally right", since I think that distinction plays in this and is paramount:

      • In today's ruthlessly corporate and big-brotherly climate, it is sadly the case that anyone who puts network-enabled hardware in their home stands a good chance of leaking data to corporations and government which the person would be appalled to discover is being leaked... and...
      • ... that this disgusting turn of things has become routine in NO WAY makes it right or non-disappointing
      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  3. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Privacy conscious people don't buy Echo, Alexa, Google home, etc. These people don't care at all if their home is a public square. The other people should just stay out of it and mind their own business.

    1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy conscious people don't buy Echo, Alexa, Google home, etc. These people don't care at all if their home is a public square. The other people should just stay out of it and mind their own business.

      Any idea how you would 'stay out of it' in terms of a software example like Facebook stalking across the internet?

      This might provide insight for staying out of it at the hardware level.

    2. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use Facebook, Twitter etc and your Information attack surface gets a whole lot smaller.
      I have never seen a FB page. Never felt the need to even try it.
      I won't have any of these so called digital assistants in my home

      Why? Well, I was brought up to know how bad 'exposing yourself' can be to you. By exposing, I mean revealing all sorts of things about yourself that should remain private and well out of the public eye let alone the Government snoopers.

    3. Re:Who cares? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Don't use Facebook, Twitter etc and your Information attack surface gets a whole lot smaller.

      Not as much as you might think. FB, Twitter, Google, etc have their little snooping presence on a huge number of sites across the internet. They have such a dense web presence that even if you block all their domains, they can still uniquely track you through timing and other methods not requiring any connection to or data transferred to or from the target. Make no mistake, these guys rival (and probably surpass in some areas) TLAs in the sophistication of their tracking methods. It's their bread & butter, after all, and they have a LOT of capital and manpower to throw at improving it.

      There's a distinct danger here, as a previous /. article earlier quoted a FB guy talking about molding and shaping public opinion. With the advent of AI on our doorstep, this could be very, very frightening. FB, Twitter, Google, and possibly other social media will literally know you and what you think better than you do and be able to predict your actions and reactions quite accurately to any particular stimulus or information, and that opens the door to insanely powerful tools of mass manipulation.

      We'd better get a handle on this now, or it will have a handle on us!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  4. this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't have an echo.

  5. I can answer that question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon hands your Echo data to the government. It's not their choice to make.

    1. Re:I can answer that question by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder if the Echo product page should say:
      Sold by the NSA, Fulfilled by Amazon

    2. Re:I can answer that question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correct. Under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act the private corporation does not have a choice. All the government has to do is assert national security concerns.

      Anyone here remember Lavabit?

      Aside from that, anyone remember Quest? The one telco that refused to play patriotic 9/11-ball with the government and just hand everything over. What happened to them?

      For this and many other reasons you simply cannot trust any U.S. based company in this regard.

    3. Re: I can answer that question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amazon's response:

      You mean our Echo data right? It's not yours anymore.

    4. Re:I can answer that question by currently_awake · · Score: 0, Troll

      China just wants your money, not to punish you for voting the wrong way or supporting the wrong people.

    5. Re:I can answer that question by slick7 · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the Echo product page should say: Sold by the NSA, Fulfilled by Amazon

      I am smarter than my phone, I program with Hollerith cards and I use 14.4 kbs dial up modem; do I need to worry?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    6. Re:I can answer that question by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 4, Informative

      China just wants your money, not to punish you for voting the wrong way or supporting the wrong people.

      While they do want your money, China very much persecutes others. For example if you're a Falun Gong member, or a Christian.

      Citations:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://www.opendoorsusa.org/c...

    7. Re:I can answer that question by dryeo · · Score: 1

      China doesn't have extradition treaties with most of the world and the clout to force other countries to extradite whether strictly legal or not.
      Not being in China, I have zero worries about them. Being in the west, I do worry I might accidentally log into some American computer and lose my freedom and worse.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:I can answer that question by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      ...at least as long as you ain't in China...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:I can answer that question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > China just wants your money, not to punish you for voting the wrong way or supporting the wrong people.

      Unless, of course, you're Chinese!

    10. Re:I can answer that question by swillden · · Score: 1

      Correct. Under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act the private corporation does not have a choice. All the government has to do is assert national security concerns.

      Incorrect. I wish people would actually look up the law, instead of just assuming.

      Yes, the PATRIOT act expanded the applicability of National Security Letters (note that it did not create NSLs, that was the Right to Financial Privacy Act, in 1978), and those allow the government to request certain sorts of information from private companies without prior judicial approval, and with a gag order on the recipient, preventing them from talking about it. However, the law also includes some important limitations. (Not enough, IMO, but the limitations that are there should not be ignored).

      The primary limitation is that NSLs may only demand metadata, not content. Metadata is incredibly useful and valuable, of course. In the context of communications between parties, knowing who talks to who and when is often more valuable than knowing exactly what they're saying. In the context of a a smart speaker, I don't see how any metadata could be useful.

      Another important limitation is that the recipient of the NSL may challenge the NSL in court. There is some evidence that many of the big tech companies do challenge them, though the evidence is obviously fragmentary, since such proceedings are normally closed and sealed, especially if the challenge is unsuccessful.

      Anyone here remember Lavabit?

      Indeed I do, and I also recall the details of how that actually went down. Lavabit had nothing to do with NSLs, it was all about ordinary court orders, because the FBI wanted the content of Snowden's communications, not just the metadata. And the reason the judge ended up handing down an extremely far-reaching order (to hand over private keys) was because Lavabit repeatedly and incompetently failed to comply with more selective orders. The "incompetently" part is important. If Lavabit had gotten an attorney and actually argued the earlier orders properly, they may or may not have won (probably not), but would ultimately have just had the selective order enforced. Mostly Lavabit just failed to respond or show up, leading the court and the FBI to decide that they were not acting in good faith, which resulted in the FBI's request for, and the court's approval of, an order to hand over their private keys. Lavabit chose to shut down instead of complying.

      Aside from that, anyone remember Quest? The one telco that refused to play patriotic 9/11-ball with the government and just hand everything over. What happened to them?

      Apparently you don't remember them very well, because their name was Qwest (note that the past tense is because they were bought out by CenturyLink, not because they ceased to exist).

      What happened to them is that because they refused to play ball, they were denied government contracts worth many millions of dollars. The CEO, Joseph Nacchio, also publicly said that the request had come several months before 9/11. He was convicted of insider trading; the charges look legitimate, but not unrelated to the NSA stuff. Nacchio had used false accounting and inflated revenue predictions to pump up Qwest's stock price, believing that he'd be able to cover those inflated predictions with the revenue of the aforementioned government contracts. So his refusal to hand over customer data did directly result in his ultimate conviction, not because the conviction was punitive but because the loss of those contracts exposed the shell game he was already playing -- a shell game which included his early sale of stock while the price was high because he suspected his value inflation would not hold up, even before he was asked to illegally provide customer data. Odds are that his game would have fallen apart even with the lost contracts. It's impossible to say whether he would have been prosecuted in that case, but it seems li

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:I can answer that question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from that, anyone remember Quest?

      Quest started out as US West. When US West became known as US Worst, rather than fix the problems that made them the most customer abusing ISP they just changed their name to Quest. After people began referring to Quest as Qworst they just did it again but chose Century Link as they couldn't figure out a way to add "worst" to that name.
      Over those years Verizon and Comcast have taken the title of "most customer abusing ISP" so there is not that much pressure to figure out how to insert "worst" into Century Link's name now.

  6. Answered by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know if they didn't they'd tell you. So of course you have your answer right there.

    1. Re: Answered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      In the words of Anon...

      "...The canary replied and it was silent..."

    2. Re:Answered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can neither confirm
      nor deny
      that America
      doth spy

    3. Re:Answered by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      You know if they didn't they'd tell you. So of course you have your answer right there.

      Dave: "Alexa, are you with law enforcement?"
      Alexa: "No, I'm not, Dave."
      Dave: "Ok, good. And you'd have to tell me if you were, right?"
      Alexa: "Of course, Dave."
      Dave: "Sweet. Ever do kinky things for money, Alexa?"
      Alexa: "Around the world will cost you $60."

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  7. In other news by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Amazon just said they hand your echo data to the government.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, this is as close to Linus answering "No" while nodding you will get from Amazon.

      They could have sent out some spokesperson that didn't have any knowledge of their actions that could have promised that they didn't hand over anything to the government.
      Instead they pretty clearly stated that they aren't allowed to tell us.

      Thumbs up from me. I'll buy from Amazon but not an Echo.

  8. Translation: by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 2

    They do. Of course they do. Obviously they do. I'm surprised they didn't insist they never do/would, all the while still doing it, doing it with relish, and indeed profiting mightily by it, then insists they had no choice if they're ever caught doing it, because, (they'll insist,) the law required them to do it, and forbade them to do other than insist that they don't. Duh.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  9. *sigh* Anybody remember the old days? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    You know, back when spies, and/or their boss had to buy their own equipment and install and maintain it themselves?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:*sigh* Anybody remember the old days? by bankman · · Score: 2

      Yes, we called them Stasi and they had to employ almost half the nation to achieve the surveillance capability available to modern governments.

      --
      I feel so sig.
    2. Re:*sigh* Anybody remember the old days? by scatbomb · · Score: 1

      Things are going more and more the way of "Brave New World" and less and less the way of "1984."

  10. They do. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    They definitely turn them over.

    I would be surprised if they don't turn them in to someone wearing a badge they got out of a cereal box.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  11. they don't have to "hand it over" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when the feds (and others) can turn on the tap at will.

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    if amazon was at all concerned about user privacy, they...

    would build the hardware with enough smarts to be trainable instead of relying on 'the cloud'...

    they would not track each individual user by voice print,

    would not track each individual hardware device,

    would not uniquely identify each device and user as it is used and with every http request sent off to amazon servers,

    would not require tying a device to an amazon account,

    would not track user to purchase to geo location to card to third party databases or to anything else,

    would allow pseudo-anonymous (i.e. unregistered 'guest') purchase of goods/services via prepaid gift card,

    would not load down web pages with a ton of tracking (and etc) scripts, and feeding backend servers for 'analytics',

    etc,

    etc,

    etc.

  12. Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They heard me ask Alexa what the weather is like, and to play some pop song, and also please turn out the light.

    Crap, I'm suspect.

    1. Re: Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's hilarious. You bought the BS hook, line and sinker.
      Echo doesn't listen until you say "Alexa."

      Then how did it hear you say "Alexa?"

    2. Re: Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevermind, I read some stuff on Stack Exchange and I sort of understand now but I'm still dumb

  13. "Amazon has a transparency problem." by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Considering the rate they are selling them at, I do not think Amazon considers it a problem at all.

  14. Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saying nothing is better than saying something and being caught in a lie.

  15. Corporations don't have a choice by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    Voice 1: "Hi, this is your local or federal law enforcement agency, and we want data on the following user."

    Voice 2: "What if I say 'no'?"

    Voice 1: "Then we confiscate all of your equipment as evidence and hope your business doesn't go bankrupt, not that it matters if it does."

    Voice 2: "Okay, here's all the stuff."

    Voice 1: "Great. We'll be calling you whenever we need anything. In exchange, we'll give you a heads up of four hours whenever we catch someone who uses the service."

    Voice 2: "Great doing business with you."

  16. Its just a voice print by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    connected to your shopping account and CC.
    The gov gets the math of every unique consumers voice.
    Its not spying as its not the content of a conversation and the consumer agreed so they could use the service. Just the math to find a person again for the ads.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  17. Much to the surprise of nobody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-details-about-the-cias-deal-with-amazon/374632/
    http://blackbag.gawker.com/amazon-is-the-scariest-part-of-the-cias-new-amazon-clo-1605847721

  18. Won't or Can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would say more but some guy in a black suit is delivering a letter.

  19. This isnâ(TM)t Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really. This is some creepy stuff and not funny at all.

  20. And? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Would any of us really believe them if they said they didn't?

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right? The whole premise of the article is that you should be upset, not that they're recording you (because you agreed to that), but that they're not telling you enough about the government's access. But what if they said there's no access? Would anyone believe them?

  21. God I hope so by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Then they will have to listen to all the nonsense my kids make it do on a daily basis. It will drive them mad.

  22. Only machines are listening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your kids are safe until the fully automated voice to text systems of our beloved spy agencies mistakenly marks your kids because it thought it heard them shouting 'COVFEFE'!

  23. Did you try asking Alexa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you try asking Alexa for the answer?

    If a million+ amazon customers did that, I bet the hint would get to Jeffy.

  24. Which government? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

    Amazon has to deal with extensive licensing and legal requests for data from many nations, some of whom have far more extensive monitoring than the USA. I'm particularly thinking of the "Great Firewall of China". There is also very little reason to think that AWS does not have the cloud equivalent of "Room 641A" formerly active in one of AT&T's hubs. See https://www.wired.com/2013/06/... for a news reports with links to more history about the system.

    1. Re:Which government? by jaseuk · · Score: 1

      This legal request workload is actually a really big problem for multinational cloud providers.. That's a good business reason for using end-to-end encryption and other technical measures that would prevent the company from accessing or monitoring the data. If they can't see it or collect it, they can't disclose it. It's a lot easier to do that then spend thousands of man hours of legal time responding to complex access requests worldwide. The resulting services/devices are generally more secure and consumers like it, except when their device is locked out.

      Patriot act etc. style provisions require hand over of records (such as Telco call logs used for billing) and allows foreign wire level snooping (ie. outsource spying to the UK/Canada/NZ/France etc.)

      So really the answer to the Amazon question really depends on their current technical architecture. If they have clear records/files then they have to hand them over when asked.

  25. Did they do it? by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

    If they're not willing to unequivocally say that they're not doing it, they're dong it. Moving along...

  26. "You can also use a cell or laptop with a movable by antdude · · Score: 1

    Where in iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks? :P

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  27. Wonder how much Google paid him for this hit piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    subject

  28. Won't say or can't say by deathguppie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the NSA comes asking Amazon for data, there are strict rules that apply. They may simply not be able to tell anyone about what information they give over. Especially if it is backed by the FICA court.

    --
    once more into the breach
    1. Re:Won't say or can't say by swillden · · Score: 1

      If the NSA comes asking Amazon for data, there are strict rules that apply. They may simply not be able to tell anyone about what information they give over. Especially if it is backed by the FICA court.

      FISA, not FICA. Also, you're conflating FISA wiretaps with National Security Letters.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  29. Don't worry my kids are corrupting the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alexa play farty pants

    Alexa play I want a I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas

    Alexa how do you wipe a butt

  30. But hey, who's counting? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

    "It's ok, only government can get at it, who will misuse it to keep themselves in power, not somebody scary like companies that wanna sell you Depends!"

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  31. bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're privacy conscious at all, just don't buy one of these things. It seems ridiculous to buy a microphone and stick it in your house, let it record all your conversations onto some company's server, and then try to nit-pick their disclosure of government requests for data.

    1. Re:bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it doesn't. Until you say the word "Alexa", no audio is sent to the server. I don't really mind if the gov has access to my playlist or my questions about weather and how many mL in a tablespoon.

  32. And they shouldn't! by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    And they should NOT disclose which customers were affected by the data demands!

    How would that look like?

    "These users were suspected by federal agencies of drug trafficing resulting in subpoenas for their data:" and a long list of names?

    --
    bickerdyke
  33. CIA contract. by JackAxe · · Score: 0

    This is just speculation, but considering Amazon was paid $600 to setup a cloud system for our government(CIA, etc. )-- link below and owns the Washington Post -- which is an establishment mouth piece -- my guess is that they do give over our info. Anyways, like any corporation I don't hold my breath when it comes to my privacy, so I take steps to hopefully limit what I share.

    A few top links about Amazon's $600 million deal with our goverment:
    http://www.businessinsider.com...
    https://www.theatlantic.com/te...

    An early article from the Washington Post talking about the sell of it to Jeff Bezo:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

  34. Amazon Won't Say. but ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... what about Alexa? She's, um, it's a pretty chatty Kathy. Has anyone simply tried asking her, um, it?

    "Alexa? Does Amazon share our Echo data with the Government?"

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Amazon Won't Say. but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They fixed this in some update but I asked alexa if she was giving my information to the CIA and she just spun and quietly rebooted. Repeatedly, every time I asked that question.

  35. if they dont say.. they do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what would be the point of not saying otherwise.. the re is no beed to say im not telling if you are not doing it

  36. Germany, EU by DrYak · · Score: 1

    and a Russian, German, British, German, or Chinese company be more trustworthy?

    At least, in the specific case of Germany (and to a lesser extent, other European countries - more often in the central-nordic. Switzerland is another such example. On the other hand France's controversial State of Emergency is a counter example), the laws happens to currently still be on your side.
    There are strong law regarding protection of customer privacy.

    I'm not saying that none of these countries' secret services will never ever attempt to spy on their own population. (e.g.: Swiss secret sevices notoriously kept files on their own population)

    I'm just saying that if a German company ends up in the same situation as Lavabit - i.e.: on the receiving end of a government order to hand out their customer case's private informations - and decides to take it to the court, they have a very high chance to actually win the case.

    (And some countries like Switzerland are even more extreme, on ground of being a direct democracy : to reduce such customer protection law, it would take a significant chunk of the population to vote for a law against their own interests. The government cannot pass something like the patriot act unchecked. Lobbying is nearly useless in direct democracies. Though that doesn't prevent the population to be massively stupid every once in a while ...cough... minaret construction ...cough.. ).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Germany, EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And some countries like Switzerland are even more extreme, on ground of being a direct democracy :
      > to reduce such customer protection law, it would take a significant chunk of the population to vote for
      > a law against their own interests. The government cannot pass something like the patriot act unchecked.
      > Lobbying is nearly useless in direct democracies.

      Nonsense. The Swiss voted just last year for the equivalent of the PATRIOT Act, secret home searches, bugs, cameras, Internet surveillance etc.pp. and accepted it! The lobbying of 'if you got nothing to hide' worked tremendously well!

  37. Stop being so naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's an American company, they collect and give out the information, regardless of what face they show to the public to keep the sales going.

    Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, they all collect and make information available to the government, because they're required to. It will not change.

  38. "Hey wiretap: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    find me a recipe for pancakes"

  39. So they obviously hand over everything by gweihir · · Score: 1

    And do that without the least bit of resistance. That is what this behavior on "transparency" means. Morale: Do not get an Echo....

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  40. No shit by mapkinase · · Score: 2

    I could have guessed that, given that my Weather Channel app on my phone always tries to sell me the latest product I saw on Amazon Website via my desktop.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  41. 600 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the well known contract they have with the CIA.
    Plus, with American law being the joke that it is, with secret orders in secret courts using secret "interpretations" of the law, even if they were not in bed with the government they would still give your data away.

  42. Amazon's transparent about it (wink) by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

    The printed material inside an echo box says "Be heard"... Amazon's simply hoping everyone takes that phrase symbolically, rather than literally.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  43. Due to NSL's by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 0

    Even if they wanted to, it's very likely that Amazon CAN'T comment on the matter at all.

    Gotta luv 'Murica and our Secret Bullshit.

    For the whole " Land of the Free" thing, our government sure has a soft spot for how " enemies of freedom " liked to do things :|

  44. If they don't deny it... by biggaijin · · Score: 1

    If they won't deny giving all this data to the government, of course it means that they are.

    Another reaffirmation of my decision never to have one of these spy devices in my home.

  45. Personal responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you disaprove of this, don't buy from Amazon. Local is good. Or are you too enamoured of convenience to care.

  46. We do NOT need these devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Echo, Alexa, Samsung Smart TVs, etc. We really don't need these devices which by design transmit our personal info back to the cloud for spying by NSA, China, North Korea or any other hackers that might be interested. That our personal lives are being deeply spied upon by such devices is well known; the answer is simple DON'T BUY THEM.

  47. re: cellphones and privacy by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    I knew that as soon as I started carrying around a cellphone, I was sacrificing a measure of privacy - just because that makes it possible to triangulate the signal and figure out where I am at all times.

    Still, there's always the trade-off of the pros vs. the cons of using a given technology. And for me, the cellphone clearly has so many benefits, I'm willing to give up that ability to locate me. (Since I know it works that way, I can opt not to carry the phone if I actually care about a company tracking my location. In other cases, it might be an advantage that I can be tracked.... like emergency situations where I want help to find me quickly.)

    As for phones listening in on you all the time? I don't think there's much evidence that they do, on the whole? There have been hacks used by the NSA or FBI to turn certain makes and models of phones into listening devices. But those are targeted at specific people, at specific times. The providers wouldn't WANT all the cellphones constantly collecting voice data anyway since that would clog up their bandwidth and stop paying customers from making and taking calls reliably. And usually, my cell is in my pants pocket where the mic is going to only pick up very muffled sounds. (Listen to what you usually hear when someone accidentally butt-dials you? It's normally more background noise than anything else.)

    Devices like Alexa don't offer enough upsides, by contrast. They're more of a "gee whiz" gadget, the way I see it. Anything they can do, I was already doing with my cellphone itself and a voice assistant like Siri. Except now, it's just a dedicated omnidirectional mic and speaker that stays powered up and listening all the time, covering several rooms of the house. And over broadband, they CAN receive audio from the mic pretty much at-will, and most people will be none the wiser.

  48. Told you so. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    But did you listen? Nope.