The practical moral to this story is that, if you find yourself facing imminent murder in the presence of an Amazon echo, or an phone with a voice-command application like Apple Siri or Hey Google Assistant, you should shout its activation word (eg: “Alexa”, “Siri”, or “OK Google”) then identify the person about to kill you and give other damning evidence. Though the program won’t do anything to help you (for odd reason, none of these systems is allowed to place 911 or other emergency calls), at least for a little while, a recording of what you say will be stored on one of these companies’ servers, making your killer-to-be change their mind for fear of being caught.
I'd like to know, should Amazon be forced to give up the information, assuming there is some, to help solve a murder investigation?
, I think a company like Amazon should be required to search for and if found provide evidence of a crime that may be stored on their computers. This should follow a lawful process, being ordered by a court, with the companies and individuals involved allowed to appeal the order, but ultimately, if the order is deemed lawful, being required to follow it.
In the linked-to Scientific American article
, David Pouge wrote
“Amazon objects to overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course,” the company said in a statement. Between the lines, you can sort of hear: “If the public thinks that we record conversations in their homes and make them available to law enforcement, that's the end of our Echo product line!”
I agree. I think Amazon and similar companies are primarily concerned with making money. Presenting a public image of championing privacy rights help them make money, but I think it’s they are interested more in presenting this image than in a sincere commitment to creating and preserving just privacy law.
Is anything still private on the IoT? https://www.theguard...-bluetooth-hack
Intrusion-prone sex toys reminds me of a running gag in the 2006 comedy movie Shortbus