'Echo Is Not Spying On You,' Amazon Lawyer Declares
Months after Apple faced off with the FBI over an order to unlock an iPhone connected to the San Bernardino shooting investigation, Amazon.com Inc. was thrust center-stage in its own digital privacy debate when Arkansas prosecutors demanded data from a murder suspect's Echo device. Amazon initially objected to the demands last year, only to later grant access after the suspect consented to the release of the data. Speaking Thursday at a Consumer Federation of America conference in Washington, an in-house lawyer at Amazon stated flatly: "No, Echo is not spying on you."
May 11, 2017 at 01:57 PM
8 minute read
Months after Apple faced off with the FBI over an order to unlock an iPhone connected to the San Bernardino, California, shooting investigation, Amazon.com Inc. was thrust center-stage in its own digital privacy debate when Arkansas prosecutors demanded data from a murder suspect's Echo device.
Amazon initially objected to the demands last year, only to later grant access after the suspect consented to turning over recordings and other data from the popular consumer device. The dustup nonetheless raised questions about when “Alexa,” the Echo device's virtual assistant, is listening—and what data the Echo collecting.
Speaking Thursday at a Consumer Federation of America conference in Washington, an in-house lawyer at Amazon stated flatly: “No, Echo is not spying on you.”
“Quite the opposite,” said Ryan McCrate, an associate general counsel for the Seattle-based company.
“We designed the Echo devices very intentionally to only listen when spoken to … and also be incredibly conspicuous when it is listening,” McCrate said, referring to the ring of LED lights that flash when Alexa perks up.
McCrate's brief remarks on the panel sounded at times like a promotional pitch touting the lengths the company took to protect consumer privacy. The Echo, he said, was inspired by Star Trek—and Amazon knew that its customers would be familiar with a virtual assistant as a science-fiction concept. But the company, he added, also realized there would be “well-founded” concerns about a product like the Echo.
“From the very beginning, we set about designing both the hardware and the cloud service to address those concerns,” McCrate said. “First, we designed the Echo to only listen when spoken to. And the way we did that was we built what we call wake-word technology, where a customer can choose a wake-word to use to activate the Echo device. And right now they can use 'Alexa,' 'Amazon,' 'Echo' or—in an homage to Star Trek—'computer' to active the Echo device.”
Each Echo device, McCrate said, is installed with software that “does one thing and one thing only, which is look for that wake-word.”
“And it never streams anything to the cloud when it tries to detect the wake-word, it doesn't even store anything locally when it's trying to detect the wake word,” he said.
“So if you don't say the wake-word, nothing is recorded on the device and nothing is streamed to Amazon.”
In the Arkansas case, lawyers for Amazon moved in February to quash a warrant ordering the retail giant to turn over recording and other data stored in the cloud from an Echo owned by James Bates, who is suspected in the slaying of a friend found dead in his hot tub in 2015.
Amazon's lawyers at Davis Wright Tremaine dropped their warrant fight after Bates agreed to hand over the data. Police had found the Echo device in Bates' kitchen during a search of his residence and requested all data recorded by the device in a 48-hour window around the alleged murder.
Asked about Amazon's approach to the warrant, McCrate said that, “as a general matter, we only provide customer information to law enforcement in response to a valid binding legal demand and routinely push back if a demand is overbroad or otherwise inappropriate.”
McCrate said that, because of the First Amendment concerns implicated by consumers' use of Echo devices—whether it be reading a book or listening to music—“the government should be required to meet a heightened burden of demonstrating necessity and relevance” when demanding data
“In this case,” McCrate said, referring to the matter in Arkansas, “the customer of the Echo device has consented.”
Copyright the National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Related Articles:
|- Amazon, Avoiding First Amendment Clash, Drops Objections to Echo Warrant
- The Internet of Things Means a Big Dilemma for Big Law Discovery
Months after
Amazon initially objected to the demands last year, only to later grant access after the suspect consented to turning over recordings and other data from the popular consumer device. The dustup nonetheless raised questions about when “Alexa,” the Echo device's virtual assistant, is listening—and what data the Echo collecting.
Speaking Thursday at a Consumer Federation of America conference in Washington, an in-house lawyer at Amazon stated flatly: “No, Echo is not spying on you.”
“Quite the opposite,” said Ryan McCrate, an associate general counsel for the Seattle-based company.
“We designed the Echo devices very intentionally to only listen when spoken to … and also be incredibly conspicuous when it is listening,” McCrate said, referring to the ring of LED lights that flash when Alexa perks up.
McCrate's brief remarks on the panel sounded at times like a promotional pitch touting the lengths the company took to protect consumer privacy. The Echo, he said, was inspired by Star Trek—and Amazon knew that its customers would be familiar with a virtual assistant as a science-fiction concept. But the company, he added, also realized there would be “well-founded” concerns about a product like the Echo.
“From the very beginning, we set about designing both the hardware and the cloud service to address those concerns,” McCrate said. “First, we designed the Echo to only listen when spoken to. And the way we did that was we built what we call wake-word technology, where a customer can choose a wake-word to use to activate the Echo device. And right now they can use 'Alexa,' 'Amazon,' 'Echo' or—in an homage to Star Trek—'computer' to active the Echo device.”
Each Echo device, McCrate said, is installed with software that “does one thing and one thing only, which is look for that wake-word.”
“And it never streams anything to the cloud when it tries to detect the wake-word, it doesn't even store anything locally when it's trying to detect the wake word,” he said.
“So if you don't say the wake-word, nothing is recorded on the device and nothing is streamed to Amazon.”
In the Arkansas case, lawyers for Amazon moved in February to quash a warrant ordering the retail giant to turn over recording and other data stored in the cloud from an Echo owned by James Bates, who is suspected in the slaying of a friend found dead in his hot tub in 2015.
Amazon's lawyers at
Asked about Amazon's approach to the warrant, McCrate said that, “as a general matter, we only provide customer information to law enforcement in response to a valid binding legal demand and routinely push back if a demand is overbroad or otherwise inappropriate.”
McCrate said that, because of the First Amendment concerns implicated by consumers' use of Echo devices—whether it be reading a book or listening to music—“the government should be required to meet a heightened burden of demonstrating necessity and relevance” when demanding data
“In this case,” McCrate said, referring to the matter in Arkansas, “the customer of the Echo device has consented.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPolicy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
Google Fails to Secure Long-Term Stay of Order Requiring It to Open App Store to Rivals
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250