Amazon Echo and the internet of things that spy on you

An upcoming court case could determine the sanctity of what is said between a person and a bot in a home

Amazon’s Echo is a robot that sits in your house and listens. The virtual personal assistant can be summoned into action by saying its name, Alexa, and will then act on commands, ... because it works by listening, Alexa is an always-on surveillance device, quietly storing snippets of information. Which has placed a particular Echo unit in an uncomfortable role: possible witness to a murder.

...On Feb. 17, 2017, Amazon filed a motion to quash the warrant for the recordings from the Echo, arguing that such a search violates first amendment and privacy rights.

...How, exactly, will the law treat recording devices, placed inside of homes,

Amazon Echo and the internet of things that spy on you

This might just be the most important thing that's happening in the world right now. And the most important question being asked of the courts. The answers will determine our freedom and rights into the future. And possibly change much that we take for granted as our lives and homes become more and more automated, and connected.

How, exactly, will the law treat recording devices, placed inside of homes, that users interact with casually and conversationally?

As Amazon frames it, the heart of the matter is whether or not a user’s speech with Alexa is protected by the First Amendment.

“The core of their argument is the government shouldn’t get to gather the recording of the user’s intellectual activity—their queries to Alexa, the books they purchased, that sort of stuff—without some kind of heightened protection,” says Kaminski. “Because this is First Amendment activity, we worry about the chilling effect.”

That’s probably where the case will go: whether a warrant is sufficient to override the user’s First Amendment rights. There’s a Supreme Court case that backs this up, Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily, which ruled that a warrant was enough for police to collect photographs from a student-run newspaper about a protest that turned violent. And even if Alexa is granted full First Amendment protections, it’s not clear that that is sufficient to stop the warrant.

Still, Amazon isn’t just arguing that the search warrant is insufficient because it threatens users' speech. There are other, broader claims in the motion that, if the court takes them up, could change how the law sees a whole swath of devices.

a reply to: soficrow

I would think they wouldn't be treated any differently than a cctv system.

a reply to: lordcomac

Why would you think that, and what do you see the implications being?

We don't care,

All the women's voices will combine to provide the truth.

Stronger than a Grand Chess player. Weaker than Right Wing Polska twat!! He's worse than a Bald headed Twat, which reflects on the Author of this, FFS!!

originally posted by: soficrow

An upcoming court case could determine the sanctity of what is said between a person and a bot in a home

Amazon’s Echo is a robot that sits in your house and listens. The virtual personal assistant can be summoned into action by saying its name, Alexa, and will then act on commands, ... because it works by listening, Alexa is an always-on surveillance device, quietly storing snippets of information. Which has placed a particular Echo unit in an uncomfortable role: possible witness to a murder.

...On Feb. 17, 2017, Amazon filed a motion to quash the warrant for the recordings from the Echo, arguing that such a search violates first amendment and privacy rights.

...How, exactly, will the law treat recording devices, placed inside of homes,

Amazon Echo and the internet of things that spy on you

This might just be the most important thing that's happening in the world right now. And the most important question being asked of the courts. The answers will determine our freedom and rights into the future. And possibly change much that we take for granted as our lives and homes become more and more automated, and connected.

How, exactly, will the law treat recording devices, placed inside of homes, that users interact with casually and conversationally?

As Amazon frames it, the heart of the matter is whether or not a user’s speech with Alexa is protected by the First Amendment.

“The core of their argument is the government shouldn’t get to gather the recording of the user’s intellectual activity—their queries to Alexa, the books they purchased, that sort of stuff—without some kind of heightened protection,” says Kaminski. “Because this is First Amendment activity, we worry about the chilling effect.”

That’s probably where the case will go: whether a warrant is sufficient to override the user’s First Amendment rights. There’s a Supreme Court case that backs this up, Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily, which ruled that a warrant was enough for police to collect photographs from a student-run newspaper about a protest that turned violent. And even if Alexa is granted full First Amendment protections, it’s not clear that that is sufficient to stop the warrant.

Still, Amazon isn’t just arguing that the search warrant is insufficient because it threatens users' speech. There are other, broader claims in the motion that, if the court takes them up, could change how the law sees a whole swath of devices.

My guess is it will be treated as it is on a state level. For instance in GA it is single party consent so I can personally record any conversation I want without consent from the other party.

It will likely go this way.

a reply to: lordcomac

This is about your right to privacy in your own home. If you really want to compare personal devices with public video surveillance, check this out:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH PUBLIC VIDEO SURVEILLANCE?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
We don't care,

All the women's voices will combine to provide the truth.

Stronger than a Grand Chess player. Weaker than Right Wing Polska twat!! He's worse than a Bald headed Twat, which reflects on the Author of this, FFS!!

Whoa...calm down a tad...not really sure what this has to do with the thread.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: soficrow

An upcoming court case could determine the sanctity of what is said between a person and a bot in a home

Amazon’s Echo is a robot that sits in your house and listens. The virtual personal assistant can be summoned into action by saying its name, Alexa, and will then act on commands, ... because it works by listening, Alexa is an always-on surveillance device, quietly storing snippets of information. Which has placed a particular Echo unit in an uncomfortable role: possible witness to a murder.

...On Feb. 17, 2017, Amazon filed a motion to quash the warrant for the recordings from the Echo, arguing that such a search violates first amendment and privacy rights.

...How, exactly, will the law treat recording devices, placed inside of homes,

Amazon Echo and the internet of things that spy on you

This might just be the most important thing that's happening in the world right now. And the most important question being asked of the courts. The answers will determine our freedom and rights into the future. And possibly change much that we take for granted as our lives and homes become more and more automated, and connected.

How, exactly, will the law treat recording devices, placed inside of homes, that users interact with casually and conversationally?

As Amazon frames it, the heart of the matter is whether or not a user’s speech with Alexa is protected by the First Amendment.

“The core of their argument is the government shouldn’t get to gather the recording of the user’s intellectual activity—their queries to Alexa, the books they purchased, that sort of stuff—without some kind of heightened protection,” says Kaminski. “Because this is First Amendment activity, we worry about the chilling effect.”

That’s probably where the case will go: whether a warrant is sufficient to override the user’s First Amendment rights. There’s a Supreme Court case that backs this up, Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily, which ruled that a warrant was enough for police to collect photographs from a student-run newspaper about a protest that turned violent. And even if Alexa is granted full First Amendment protections, it’s not clear that that is sufficient to stop the warrant.

Still, Amazon isn’t just arguing that the search warrant is insufficient because it threatens users' speech. There are other, broader claims in the motion that, if the court takes them up, could change how the law sees a whole swath of devices.

My guess is it will be treated as it is on a state level. For instance in GA it is single party consent so I can personally record any conversation I want without consent from the other party.

It will likely go this way.

This is a completely different issue Vasa. Many things in our lives are already automated and connected, and soon many more will be too. Our devices and appliances listen to us, record us, and share their information with each other - many via the cloud.

But we do not 'censor' ourselves in front of our appliances because well, we're in the privacy of our home, right?

Depending on how this lawsuit plays out, we could lose the right to privacy in our own homes. And more.


There's a whole lot of rights and freedoms on the table here.

a reply to: soficrow

I've been watching over the past several years as technology soars into the age of electronics and fiber optics. And I can't help but think this was all planned for more devious purposes than most people are aware of or care to even consider.

I for one believe that while everyone is playing with their shiny new toys, that this was meant to backfire in order to pull the entire monetary system to it's knees, making way for something much darker. People really have no clue how to survive without their stuff and it's scary to listen to those who shut their eyes to the reality of what's being done. It's candy coated, laced with cyanide.

If the grid went down, what would people do? It would be chaotic and the disarray would be felt by everyone.

Good Post

eta: as for the listening devices there's a lot i could say about that but for now i will say this. I know they exist, frequencies are used to control people already (for example teenagers who hang around places making annoyances, have been dealt with by using certain sound waves only they can hear, irritating them to the point where they simply leave the area) but also, TV's like in England with listening devices are used, and it's spreading rapidly through out the western hempisphere as well, is programming people to accept this new way of life simply because they can't do a thing about it. Denial and then anger and then acceptance. Like jailers with their prisoners people have let this happen on their watch.

The core of their argument is the government shouldn’t get to gather the recording of the user’s intellectual activity—their queries to Alexa, the books they purchased, that sort of stuff—without some kind of heightened protection,” says Kaminski. “Because this is First Amendment activity, we worry about the chilling effect.”

Good luck with that since they been watching what books people checked out of the library before most people stopped using them.

As technology evolves so does the method of big brother.

Don't really need smart appliances when there are Amazon Echo's.

originally posted by: soficrow

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: soficrow

An upcoming court case could determine the sanctity of what is said between a person and a bot in a home

Amazon’s Echo is a robot that sits in your house and listens. The virtual personal assistant can be summoned into action by saying its name, Alexa, and will then act on commands, ... because it works by listening, Alexa is an always-on surveillance device, quietly storing snippets of information. Which has placed a particular Echo unit in an uncomfortable role: possible witness to a murder.

...On Feb. 17, 2017, Amazon filed a motion to quash the warrant for the recordings from the Echo, arguing that such a search violates first amendment and privacy rights.

...How, exactly, will the law treat recording devices, placed inside of homes,

Amazon Echo and the internet of things that spy on you

This might just be the most important thing that's happening in the world right now. And the most important question being asked of the courts. The answers will determine our freedom and rights into the future. And possibly change much that we take for granted as our lives and homes become more and more automated, and connected.

How, exactly, will the law treat recording devices, placed inside of homes, that users interact with casually and conversationally?

As Amazon frames it, the heart of the matter is whether or not a user’s speech with Alexa is protected by the First Amendment.

“The core of their argument is the government shouldn’t get to gather the recording of the user’s intellectual activity—their queries to Alexa, the books they purchased, that sort of stuff—without some kind of heightened protection,” says Kaminski. “Because this is First Amendment activity, we worry about the chilling effect.”

That’s probably where the case will go: whether a warrant is sufficient to override the user’s First Amendment rights. There’s a Supreme Court case that backs this up, Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily, which ruled that a warrant was enough for police to collect photographs from a student-run newspaper about a protest that turned violent. And even if Alexa is granted full First Amendment protections, it’s not clear that that is sufficient to stop the warrant.

Still, Amazon isn’t just arguing that the search warrant is insufficient because it threatens users' speech. There are other, broader claims in the motion that, if the court takes them up, could change how the law sees a whole swath of devices.

My guess is it will be treated as it is on a state level. For instance in GA it is single party consent so I can personally record any conversation I want without consent from the other party.

It will likely go this way.

This is a completely different issue Vasa. Many things in our lives are already automated and connected, and soon many more will be too. Our devices and appliances listen to us, record us, and share their information with each other - many via the cloud.

But we do not 'censor' ourselves in front of our appliances because well, we're in the privacy of our home, right?

Depending on how this lawsuit plays out, we could lose the right to privacy in our own homes. And more.


There's a whole lot of rights and freedoms on the table here.

I get it.

Why do you think the biggest cell phone companies, Apple and Samsung, have their flagship devices built so the battery can't be removed?

It really isn't any different than what I said in my previous post. If you choose to bring these devices into your home then you choose to allow whatever recording happens. I think the issue is really if Amazon discloses the recording ability of the device and if it truly does listen all the time.

I have 3 of them in my house, but I don't really worry too much since I don't do anything that anyone would really care about.

Funny...right after I posted that last post I got an email from Amazon about my Echo. Now that does make me wonder if the Echo is on my wireless is it able to access my communications on all devices connected to wireless?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I have 3 of them in my house, but I don't really worry too much since I don't do anything that anyone would really care about.

Marketers care.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

...if the Echo is on my wireless is it able to access my communications on all devices connected to wireless?

The info goes to the internet from wireless devices like Echo and gets stored there.

Once activated, people interact with their Echo units through Alexa, which sounds a lot like two humans having a conversation, but is in effect one person providing information to an extension of a fast technology company that can record what is said, store it in files far outside the user’s home, and use that information to play music, search the internet, or even make purchases.

The whole thing gets really hairy if you have a lot of devices connecting to the internet - basically creating an "information network" into the details of your life that is anything but private.

I don't know a lot about this issue, and admit to a fair degree of privacy paranoia (like tape over the camera on my computer) and minimizing connected devices - but don't want to go all Luddite. I hope we can find solutions. 'Cuz there's a bunch of stuff I really want.

An Overview of Privacy and Security Issues in the Internet of Things

Abstract
While the general definition of the Internet of Things (IoT) is almost mature, roughly defining it as an information network connecting virtual and physical objects, there is a consistent lack of consensus around technical and regulatory solutions. There is no doubt, though, that the new paradigm will bring forward a completely new host of issues because of its deep impact on all aspects of human life. In this work, the authors outline the current technological and technical trends and their impacts on the security, privacy, and governance. The work is split into short- and long-term analysis where the former is focused on already or soon available technology, while the latter is based on vision concepts.

I don't have Echo....and would not have it in my home because I find it invasive.
I do have Alexa on several devices...and rarely use it.....occasionally on the Fire Stick.

I do find my phone invasive....it is a slightly different matter.
But it displays notifications for places I am at, and until I turned it off....would tell me how long until i was would be back at home.
I found that spooky....and figured it reports this info to Google or something.


I hope Amazon winds their Echo court case.
We need to guard what little is left of our privacy.

a reply to: soficrow

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: lordcomac

Why would you think that, and what do you see the implications being?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: lordcomac

This is about your right to privacy in your own home. If you really want to compare personal devices with public video surveillance, check this out:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH PUBLIC VIDEO SURVEILLANCE?

Allow me to clarify- perhaps I'm misunderstanding the story, here...


IF I were dumb enough to allow such a device into my home (such as my cell phone- yes, I am), let's consider the following:

1) I was murdered. Nobody knows why. The police search my home, and find such a device- it has potential evidence of who killed me.

Yeah, in this case I'd want that information to be used. I'd want it public, even- at least the relative bits. Same as a CCTV system. If I had surveillance cameras installed on my property and a crime was committed on my property, I'd fully expect them to be used as evidence.

However!
2) The bitch next door is killed. Everyone knows I hate her. The police determine that I'm a suspect in her death. SHE has cameras, and a stalker device in her home- As do I.

No, in this case I do not see my personal video/audio recording devices in my home (cell phone, smart tv, stalker amazon box, etc) as being fair game for the investigation. But the ones on her property? Well, they're not mine and therefore not my right decide.

See where I'm coming from?

If you choose to live-stream your entire life audio/video to a recording, and a crime is committed against you- that information should be available to be used in your defense.



Now, the hard situation.

Lets say I do murder that bitch next door- and we DO both have video/audio recording devices in our homes.
I'm going to go with the same- as a suspect, my recordings are NOT available to the authorities. Unless I agree they can have them, of course. Amazon shouldn't even come into the question.
Hers, though- that's up to her. And if she's dead over the matter, I assume the authorities would assume she would want them to have them.

Closed-circuit television (CCTV), also known as video surveillance,[1][2] is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place, on a limited set of monitors.

I stand by it- Recordings of personal audio inside the home shouldn't be treated any differently than recordings of personal video in the home.
Having said that, if you're a company who sneaks in audio/video recordings into your products without fully informing your customers of the ramifications with more than a 40 page nobody-reads-TOS, please take your NSA funded bollocks product and go die in a fire.

That includes every smart phone manufacturer and re-seller, for the record.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I hope Amazon wins their Echo court case.
We need to guard what little is left of our privacy.

Me2 and no kidding!

a reply to: lordcomac

Recordings of personal audio inside the home shouldn't be treated any differently than recordings of personal video in the home.

This issue is about the individual's right to personal privacy with respect to information collected by personal devices and stored outside the home (on the internet). Given the 'internet of things,' this amounts to a whole helluva lot of data - much of it very personal.

Unfortunately, seems there's no way to legally specify government's right to access such information only in the case of a crime, and only the data related to said crime. And given the way the law for such things works, opening the door for one thing inevitably leads to full-on invasion of privacy.

For example, US border guards now are confiscating peoples' devices and demanding their passwords (at the Canada-US border at least). What people say in texts, on FB and etc. is considered revealing - and such access is considered necessary for investigating terrorism now.

...On the other hand, communications corporations already have that incredibly-complete access, and are free to use it in whatever way they wish, although purportedly subject to the terms of their 'users agreements.' At the very least, that use involves "targeted marketing" - considered by some to be an invasion of privacy.

So seems the choice is whether to restrict access of personal information to corporations, or allow both corporations and governments to invade our privacy. Next question: What's the difference between the two?

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: soficrow

I would think they wouldn't be treated any differently than a cctv system.

The law treats audio recording very much differently than video captures.


With respect to Sofi's question though, how should it be handled, I personally don't think the law should be involved at all with respect to 'always on' devices that a person willingly brings into their home. I think the individual should have the power to determine what audio is permissible to others and what is not. The manufacturers should develop (in good conscience) personally identifiable audio encryption into their units, thereby giving the end-user the ability to partition, if you will, the device and compartmentalize some types of audio as public, and that which is not, is encrypted only available by the owner's voice code or other biometric unlocking technique.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
I don't have Echo....and would not have it in my home because I find it invasive.
I do have Alexa on several devices...and rarely use it.....occasionally on the Fire Stick.

I do find my phone invasive....it is a slightly different matter.
But it displays notifications for places I am at, and until I turned it off....would tell me how long until i was would be back at home.
I found that spooky....and figured it reports this info to Google or something.

I hope Amazon winds their Echo court case.
We need to guard what little is left of our privacy.

Just turn off locations.