Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SarahBell

Technology catches murderers

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38450658

US police investigating a murder have tussled with Amazon over access to data gathered by one of its Echo speakers.

However, the court papers indicate that the property's smart water meter may have yielded the most useful evidence.

The police say it showed that 140 gallons (636 litres) of water was used around the time of the alleged killing. They suggest this was down to Mr Bates using a garden hose to wash away evidence from his porch before he alerted them to the death

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone putting one of these speakers in their house needs their head looking at.

The water meter is not evidence at all. No one is going to be convicted of a murder just because they washed their porch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, frozen_out said:

Anyone putting one of these speakers in their house needs their head looking at.

The water meter is not evidence at all. No one is going to be convicted of a murder just because they washed their porch.

And yet people seem to be queuing up to buy the things.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frozen_out said:

Anyone putting one of these speakers in their house needs their head looking at.

The water meter is not evidence at all. No one is going to be convicted of a murder just because they washed their porch.

Wouldn't that be circumstantial evidence? I presume the water use wasn't in the suspects first statement. They now found it due to the smart meter and at a minimum I presume he'll have to change his story to explain the water use, so he'll be changing his story and looking suspicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, assetrichcashpoor said:

Wouldn't that be circumstantial evidence? I presume the water use wasn't in the suspects first statement. They now found it due to the smart meter and at a minimum I presume he'll have to change his story to explain the water use, so he'll be changing his story and looking suspicious.

This is perhaps why it's better to say nothing. I suppose you could get into a situation where you said you were out between 4 and 5 but your smart meter says otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, frozen_out said:

This is perhaps why it's better to say nothing. I suppose you could get into a situation where you said you were out between 4 and 5 but your smart meter says otherwise.

It's better not to murder anyone on your porch to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frozen_out said:

Anyone putting one of these speakers in their house needs their head looking at.

The water meter is not evidence at all. No one is going to be convicted of a murder just because they washed their porch.

 

24 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

It's better not to murder anyone on your porch to begin with.

Surely anyone rich enough to drive a porch doesn't wash it themselves anyway 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, frozen_out said:

This is perhaps why it's better to say nothing. I suppose you could get into a situation where you said you were out between 4 and 5 but your smart meter says otherwise.

Do they still have the right to silence in that part of the USA?

Over here we now have, ' You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.'

How would this water use or the lack of explanation of the water be taken in a UK court? If he didn't mention the water use the first time he was questioned as the investigators didn't know about it then and he hadn't volunteered the information, then made up an excuse on a later questioning session once they'd found out. Would it harm his defence as he was relying on something he hadn't mentioned?

 

I knew someone who did some legal training but didn't finish. A mutual friend of ours was involved in a road traffic accident when he wasn't the most at fault but the other person was elderly and the police seemed to give them a lot of sympathy. The police came round unannounced at ~10 pm on a Sunday evening and wanted to take the driver in for questioning without legal representation. The legally trained friend happened to be round at the time and told the driver not to go, to arrange a more convenient time, make sure he had legal representation and to say 'no comment.'

I think this saved the driver; knowing him fairly well I think he would have been pressured into admitting careless or even dangerous driving. In the end he wasn't prosecuted, it was hard to see what they would have charged him with as it seemed to be a case of wrong place, wrong time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, assetrichcashpoor said:

Do they still have the right to silence in that part of the USA?

Over here we now have, ' You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.'

How would this water use or the lack of explanation of the water be taken in a UK court? If he didn't mention the water use the first time he was questioned as the investigators didn't know about it then and he hadn't volunteered the information, then made up an excuse on a later questioning session once they'd found out. Would it harm his defence as he was relying on something he hadn't mentioned?

 

I knew someone who did some legal training but didn't finish. A mutual friend of ours was involved in a road traffic accident when he wasn't the most at fault but the other person was elderly and the police seemed to give them a lot of sympathy. The police came round unannounced at ~10 pm on a Sunday evening and wanted to take the driver in for questioning without legal representation. The legally trained friend happened to be round at the time and told the driver not to go, to arrange a more convenient time, make sure he had legal representation and to say 'no comment.'

I think this saved the driver; knowing him fairly well I think he would have been pressured into admitting careless or even dangerous driving. In the end he wasn't prosecuted, it was hard to see what they would have charged him with as it seemed to be a case of wrong place, wrong time.

 

5th Amendment - fundamental right in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I searched Amazon for some US Army can openers for camping - models P-38 and P-51 - NOT the WWII P-38 Lightning or P-51 Mustang aircraft. Within 2 hours Facebook was recommending a WWII aircraft website to me.

Amazon, Facebook, Google and Twitter have turned the Internet into a giant panopticon. And getting their deductions wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, happy_renting said:

Amazon, Facebook, Google and Twitter have turned the Internet into a giant panopticon. And getting their deductions wrong.

They don't really care about whether their current deductions are less than perfect, what matters to them is simply collecting as much data as possible, as once collected and in their possession they can use it over and over again with ever improved algorithms for all sorts of purposes you wouldn't even dream about.

Remember what former CIA director Hayden said: "we kill people based on metadata" https://www.rt.com/usa/158460-cia-director-metadata-kill-people/

The fact that deductions might be occasionally or even frequently be faulty doesn't matter, that's just collateral damage to them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   28 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.