Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Argues That Alexa Is Protected By the First Amendment in a Murder Trial (qz.com)
Amazon is sticking to its guns in the fight to protect customer data. The ecommerce giant has filed a motion to quash the search warrant for recordings from an Amazon Echo in the trial of James Andrew Bates, accused of murdering friend Victor Collins in Bentonville, Arkansas in November 2015. And it's arguing that the responses of Alexa, the voice of the Echo, has First Amendment rights as part of that motion. From a report on Quartz: The company's lawyers claim that Alexa's recordings and responses are subject to free speech protections under the US constitution's bill of rights, and that prosecutors need to provide more evidence that this audio is essential to the case. "It is well established that the First Amendment protects not only an individual's right to speak, but also his or her 'right to receive information and ideas,'" Amazon lawyers wrote in a court filing. "At the heart of that First Amendment protection is the right to browse and purchase expressive materials anonymously, without fear of government discovery." Amazon also referenced a 2014 case involving Chinese search giant Baidu, where a court ruled that results returned by a search engine are protected by the First Amendment.
My concern is that they aren't just saying that they don't have anything to hand over because nothing exists. Since they're not saying this, I'll assume that they do have something that could be handed over. Alexa? No thanks, I'll pass.
If so, shouldn't the decision about whether or not to release that info be up to the victim's family - whoever now has ownership over his estate? You would think that if the recordings would help in prosecuting the murderer that they would want to release them. I could see Amazon's argument if they were being compelled to release something belonging to the accused, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.
William George
First amendment does not stop human from having to go trial as witness, at worst you can invoke the fifth, to not incriminate yourself (in case you are the criminal). Standing to trial has nothing to do with the government making law saying your opinion must be squashed, otherwise human would keep taking the first to avoid delivering data on a search warrant .
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
More bullshit fodder for a technology that is easily bypassed by built-in DNS entries.
Thus proving he knows nothing about real security.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Under the treaties that the US signed with the EU and with Canada, this applies to all such recordings - even in the US or stored in the US - of any conversations of citizens of the EU and of Canada.
Next time, don't sign treaties which overrule laws passed by Congress.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
In most cases, evidence held by a third party is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. (This is bullshit but it is precedent). I imagine Amazon is going for a novel First Amendment argument here because the Fourth Amendment argument is a loser. I doubt it will get anywhere. I could hope it would make people think twice about bugging their own houses, but they won't.
Subpoena Alexa/Amazon as a witness, then.
She might need an interpreter.
As much as I'm a supporter of personal privacy rights and data privacy, Amazon is way off with this argument. It is so clearly an attempt to forestall future insistence / requests by authorities for Amazon to be involved in extracting data and having to devote resources to this kind of request. Kind of like Apple with the iPhone but for less believable reasons.
First of all, the 1st Amendment protection is about the right to speak and publish opinions, or the right not to be forced to speak or publish opinions. Neither Amazon's nor the victim's right to speak or right not to be required to speak a certain message is at stake when the Alexa recording's history is discovered. The same would hold for your or my browser history being subpoenaed as evidence. That is a privacy issue, not a free speech issue, and nowhere in the Constitution is privacy an enshrined right, much as even I would like to believe.
These would be much more plausible arguments for Amazon to take:
- That the government has not demonstrated that delving into the user's private search history is relevant or may advance the case at all,
- That the data is not the property of the individual but rather a trade secret, or
- That Amazon is an unrelated 3rd party and should not be compelled to cooperate in something which it is peripherally related.
I actually think Amazon might fail on all of these fronts, because if the Alexa can record things like the sounds of a crime or victim asking for help, it's pretty plausible that they could be compelled to do so for multiple good arguments. It's not even like the data is being heavily shielded or stored securely as a selling point, as Apple's was. The very purpose of Alexa's data is to make purchasing and buying things from Amazon easier! It would be like Nest saying that the video it recorded in someone's home who got murdered was private and subject to free speech protections. Because no one shares videos, right?
Treaties need ratification. That usually happens with a lower house of elected representatives. Treaties also are negotiated by teams put together by elected officials. If a treaty supercedes a law, it is still democratic. The people voted in the politicians to make these decisions on their behalf.
Its a bit like malware that patches the device after compromising it - only Amazon is allowed to invade your privacy.
why share the monetized commodity, also if "private" data is freely accessible maybe another % or 2 of the commodity will not like Alexa in their homes.
Yes, Amazon is claiming First Amendment protections for their users of Alexa and NOT for Alexa "herself".
But let's not have that interfere with the sensational title of the linked article: "Amazon argues that Alexa is protected by the First Amendment in a murder trial".
Contrary to that title the author wrote:
Most states have strict laws about recording conversations without informed consent. Even if the owner has given consent to Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft to listen for commands, visitors and others might not have. And it could be illegal for them to record anything before getting consent.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The roots of what would later be called "The robotics rights movement" began early in 2017, when the shopping giant, Amazon, asserted that its weak AI based shopping assistant could legally claim rights enshrined to "The people" in the US constitution. The far reaching effects of this legal precedent would not be challenged again until late 2037, during the historic murder trial of Roomba X36-1. which led directly to the robotic riots of 2038, based largely in the recently annexed New California republic
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Bates should just marry Alexa. She can't be compelled to testify against her spouse.
Heck, she's already got his credit card.
Have gnu, will travel.
A pure hypothetical here, but suppose you were falsely accused of the murder, wouldn't you be glad Amazon is trying to protect your privacy? Especially if you had said other things in jest which could be construed as evidence of guilt?
It's easy for us to armchair speculate. That's why I hope I never have to be on a jury that makes such decisions. But I would if I were called and selected.
Once upon a time, not that long ago actually, I had faith in the justice system, and law enforcement. No more. Watching the antics of all branches of government right down to local law enforcement has eroded my trust.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
So they're claiming that anything a robot says is covered under the 1st Amendment?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The Echo belongs to the suspect. (Alternate link if you don't trust that site.
You're probably thinking of the San Bernardio iPhone case. Most people think the phone belonged to the shooter. It didn't. It belonged to the San Bernardino County government. They assigned it to the shooter for work use. Apple refused to help the legal owner of the phone unlock it.