We will, I think, be seeing increasing use of the surveillance devices we’ve carry with us and have installed in homes as sources of “tech witness” evidence in the courts…
For example, at the end of last year were reports of the prosecution of a 2015 crime in which the police requested copies of records (court papers, 08/26/2016 01:36 PM SEARCH WARRANT FILED) from Amazon’s audio surveillance device, the Amazon Echo (BBC, Guardian, Independent; the article that broke the story from The Information is subscription only).
Form the justification of the request for the search warrant:
On ??, the Honorable Judge ?? reviewed and approved a search warrant for ??’s residence once again, located at ??, specifically for the search and seizure of electronic devices capable of storing and transmitting any form of data that could be related to this investigation. Officers executed this search warrant on this same date and during the course of the search, I located an Amazon Echo device in the kitchen, lying on the kitchen counter next to the refrigerator, plugged into the wall outlet. I had previously observed this device in the same position and state during the previous search warrant on ??.
…
While searching ??’ residence, we discovered numerous devices that were used for “smart home” services, to include a “Nest” thermometer that is Wi-Fi connected and remotely controlled, a Honeywell alarm system that included door monitoring alarms and motion sensor in the living room, a wireless weather monitoring system outside on the back patio, and WeMo devices in the garage area for remote-activated lighting purposes that had not been opened yet. All of these devices, to include the Amazon Echo device, can be controlled remotely using a cell phone, computer, or other device capable of communicating through a network and are capable of interacting with one another through the use of one or more applications or programs. Through investigation, it was learned that during the time period of ??’s time at the residence, music was being wirelessly streamed throughout the home and onto the back patio of the residence, which could have been activated and controlled utilizing the Amazon Echo device or an application for the device installed on ??’s cell Apple iPhone.
The Amazon Echo device is constantly listening for the “wake” command of “Alexa” or “Amazon,” and records any command, inquiry, or verbal gesture given after that point, or possibly at all times without the “wake word” being issued, which is uploaded to Amazon.com’s servers at a remote location. It is believed that these records are retained by Amazon.com and that they are evidence related to the case under investigation.
On ??, Amazon.com was served with a search warrant that was reviewed and approved by Circuit Court Judge ?? on the same date. The search warrant was sent through Amazon’s law enforcement email service and was also sent through United States Postal Service Certified Mail to their corporate headquarters in Tumwater, Washington. The search warrant was received by Amazon through the mail on ??, and representatives with Amazon have been in contact with this agency since receiving the search warrant. In speaking with their law enforcement liaison, Greg Haney, I was informed on two separate occasions that Amazon was in possession of the requested data in the search warrant but needed to consult with their counsel prior to complying with the search warrant. As of ??, Amazon has not provided our agency with the requested data and an extension for the originally ordered search warrant was sought.
After being served with the second search warrant, Amazon did not comply with providing all of the requested information listed in the search warrant, specifically any information that the Echo device could have transmitted to their servers. This agency maintains custody of the Echo device and it has since been learned that the device contains hardware capable of storing data, to potentially include time stamps, audio files,\nor other data. It is believed that the device may contain evidence related to this investigation and a search of the device itself will yield additional data pertinent to this case.
Our agency has also maintained custody of ??’s cell phone, an LG Model LG—E980, and ??’s cell phone, a Huawei Nexus cell phone, that was seized from ?? as a result of his arrest on ??, and we have been unable to access the data stored on the devices due to a passcode lock on them. Despite efforts to obtain the passcode, the devices could not be accessed. Our agency now has the ability to utilize data extraction methods that negate the need for passcodes and efforts to search ?? and ??’s devices will continue upon issuance of this warrant.
Today, via @charlesarthur (& also Schneier), I notice a story describing how Cops use pacemaker data to charge homeowner with arson, insurance fraud. (I found some (court records Middletown, Butler County, 16CRA04386) but couldn’t find/see the filing for the warrant?) It seems that “[p]olice set out to disprove ??’s story … by obtaining a search warrant to collect data from [his] pacemaker. WLWT5 reported that the cops wanted to know “??’s heart rate, pacer demand and cardiac rhythms before, during and after the fire.”
This builds on previous examples of Fitbit data being called on as evidence in at least of couple of US court cases, challenging claims made by individuals that they were engaged in one sort of behaviour when their logged physiological data suggested they were not.
And of course, many cars now have their own black box, which is likely to include ever more detailed data logs. For example, a recent report by the US Depart of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) included reference to “data logs, image files, and records related to the crashes … provided by Tesla in response to NHTSA subpoenas.”
It’ll be interesting to see the extent to which contemporary data/video/audio collecting devices will be viewed as reliable (or unreliable) witnesses, and further down the line, the extent to which algorithmic classifications are trusted. For example, in using OCR to extract the text from the scanned PDF of the court filing shown above, which for some reason I had to convert to a JPG image before Apache Tika running on docker cloud would extract text from it, I noticed on one page it has mis-recognised Amazon servers as Amazon sewers.
PS in passing, I’m quite amazed at how much personal information is made available via public documents associated with the justice system in the US.
PPS in passing, I note this (now closed) consultation from ofgem on mandatory half-hour settlement (which is to say, logging your energy usage every half an hour). FWIW, here’s the ICO’s response.
