Hacker News Reader

Comment by misja111 | Hacker News Reader

I'm wondering, what if the suspect agreed with the request of the police to check the Echo recordings? Suppose the suspect is innocent and thinks that allowing access to the Echo recordings can only make his case stronger.

Would Amazon then still refuse access?

View on HN

There is a strong argument for them to still refuse: suppose the suspect somehow gamed the system (e.g. by translating the voice via radio), and the suspect is acquitted based on this data, and proceeds to do his evil things — think about the bad PR your company would get! No thanks, I'd rather stick to the safe and rather popular policy of preserving privacy.

Does Amazon not provide access to your recordings similar to how Google does with OK Google recordings? That seems easier.

The cops can't be certain if the suspect hasn't deleted incriminating recordings.

How is that different from you giving them access to your text messages?

Edit: IANAL, but pretty sure deleting incriminating evidence is obstruction of justice

I don't think it is. I expect cops to ask the provider for a copy of the messages as well.

pretty sure deleting incriminating evidence is obstruction of justice

Probably, but so what?

This thread started with the idea that someone might want their Alexa records as evidence of their innocence. I doubt that an innocent person would commit a crime to remove potentially incriminating evidence from their voluntarily offered evidence.

The prosecution very well might subpoena those records if they thought there was value in so doing.

Edit: grammars

And my point is that the records are useless as evidence, since the cops can't trust them, therefore an innocent person would want Amazon to provide the recordings themselves anyway.

In the US it's the jury that needs to trust them.

From my POV, cops tend to ignore anything that doesn't point to "guilty". There would be no benefit to the accused in this case. IANAL, yada, yada.

That's absurd. Investigative police work is the process of ruling out possible suspects to arrive at the truth.

That might be the definition of "investigative police work", yes. That's not what I've observed in practice. And those that know better than I advise against giving up evidence with the idea that it will "help your case"; re: the "don't talk to the police" video that is so often referenced here.

So you think that, for instance, if the police are investigating you in connection with a bank robbery while you were in another country speaking at a conference, you should not tell them that?

What about if you are wanted for questioning about a murder which involved dragging the body a significant distance while you were in the hospital recovering from chemotherapy? Still don't talk to the cops?

Still don't talk to the cops?

Nope. While you're busy playing "what if...", I'm dialing a lawyer. Should that trained professional advise talking to the adversarial trained professionals, then I would do so, and not before.

I don't how it is where you're at, but in the U. S. cops have demonstrated time and again (and I've seen with my own eyes) that they are not concerned about truth and justice, but arrest and conviction rates. I'm not walking into that scenario running my mouth without professional advice.

On TV maybe. In real life investigative police work is gathering enough evidence on a suspect that a prosecutor will take the case.

You really think that "in real life" the police just arrest whoever is the first suspect and don't investigate farther? That has not been my experience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com