<story><title>Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-20/locked-down-lawyers-warned-alexa-is-hearing-confidential-calls</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>pdkl95</author><text>Alexa &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt; are also normalizing &amp;quot;always on microphone that sends audio to a remote business over the internet&amp;quot; &lt;i&gt;technology&lt;/i&gt;. According to the bright-line rule from &lt;i&gt;Kyllo v United States&lt;/i&gt;[1], when a technology is &amp;quot;in general public use&amp;quot;[2], police no longer need a warrant when they use their own devices based on that technology to see the &amp;quot;details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion&amp;quot;[3].&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;caselaw.findlaw.com&amp;#x2F;us-supreme-court&amp;#x2F;533&amp;#x2F;27.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;caselaw.findlaw.com&amp;#x2F;us-supreme-court&amp;#x2F;533&amp;#x2F;27.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] Used throughout the ruling[1], but especially section II of Justice Stevens&amp;#x27; dissent.&lt;p&gt;[3] The ruling[1], 2nd paragraph</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bdowling</author><text>&amp;gt; [3] The ruling[1], 2nd paragraph&lt;p&gt;You cited the summary, which may be useful but isn’t legally binding. The actual opinion starts after “Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.”&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;i&gt;Kyllo&lt;/i&gt; isn’t relevant to your concerns. A microphone and radio which picks up audio and transmits it is a technology which has been around for more than 60 years. Use of that technology has been addressed by the court in &lt;i&gt;Katz&lt;/i&gt; and its predecessors, which collectively found that warrantless use by the police of such tech is often prohibited by the fourth amendment.&lt;p&gt;A more relevant question is whether the fourth amendment would allow police to access records stored by Amazon in the case of conversations picked up by Alexa devices. Usually, such data is fair game (third-party doctrine), but there are some constitutional restrictions (See e.g., *Carpenter v. U.S., 2018). However, even if there were no restrictions, the question is probably moot because other laws (Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act) restrict police behavior. Basically everyone believes that these restrictions apply to Alexa recordings.&lt;p&gt;Recently there was a case in which a police department served Amazon with a subpoena for Alexa recordings from the scene of a suspected murder. I don’t remember the outcome in that case, but that too is irrelevant to concerns about warrantless collecting or searching of Alexa data, because there a warrant was or could have been obtained.</text></comment>
<story><title>Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-20/locked-down-lawyers-warned-alexa-is-hearing-confidential-calls</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>pdkl95</author><text>Alexa &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt; are also normalizing &amp;quot;always on microphone that sends audio to a remote business over the internet&amp;quot; &lt;i&gt;technology&lt;/i&gt;. According to the bright-line rule from &lt;i&gt;Kyllo v United States&lt;/i&gt;[1], when a technology is &amp;quot;in general public use&amp;quot;[2], police no longer need a warrant when they use their own devices based on that technology to see the &amp;quot;details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion&amp;quot;[3].&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;caselaw.findlaw.com&amp;#x2F;us-supreme-court&amp;#x2F;533&amp;#x2F;27.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;caselaw.findlaw.com&amp;#x2F;us-supreme-court&amp;#x2F;533&amp;#x2F;27.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] Used throughout the ruling[1], but especially section II of Justice Stevens&amp;#x27; dissent.&lt;p&gt;[3] The ruling[1], 2nd paragraph</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lima</author><text>How so?&lt;p&gt;The ruling is about agents using thermal imaging technology to bust a marijuana plantation, performed from a car on a public street. The court stated that this does not constitute a search, since any random citizen could&amp;#x27;ve done the same thing using commodity equipment.&lt;p&gt;Always on microphones that transmit via the internet (i.e. bugs) have been a commodity for... a few decades? But you still cannot legally bug your neighbor&amp;#x27;s apartment.</text></comment>