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.

Comments

Why is Amazon/Alexa even saving recordings?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why is Amazon/Alexa even saving recordings?

[skids]

You'd think someone in product development would have been smart enough to say "hey, we should only store post-processed voiceprint data not raw speech so we don't have to deal with legal bullshit."

Re:Why is Amazon/Alexa even saving recordings?

[Scarred Intellect]

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.

From TFA:

The heart of Amazon’s claim is that Alexa devices could provide insights into a person’s entire life, and having two days worth of audio would be an unreasonable invasion of that privacy. Knowing that law enforcement has the ability to request data from these devices and peruse them at will would have a chilling effect on people using the services—which clearly would be bad news for Amazon’s business.

Re:Why is Amazon/Alexa even saving recordings?

[DickBreath]

Alexa has a Mute Mic button. The purpose of that button is to signal Amazon that you're about to discuss something especially interesting. Therefore everything should now be recorded until the user indicates to unmute.

Re:Why is Amazon/Alexa even saving recordings?

[Roger W Moore]

Having Amazon record and keep all that audio is the unreasonable invasion of privacy. The fact that people will not use their service if they realize what it does is Amazon's problem and not a reason to deny use of the material in court.

Re: Why is Amazon/Alexa even saving recordings?

[TheRaven64]

I don't particularly worry about Amazon intentionally violating privacy with Alexa, but when you have something like that it's a wonderful target. The mute button is entirely software, so there are all sorts of things that an attacker can do if they compromise either an individual machine or the Amazon software update server. For example, it would be a trivial patch to make it stream the audio to a different cloud service when you press the mute button. Those thousands of people working at Amazon on Alexa also make it relatively easy to sneak someone into the company to exfiltrate user data. Even if their software is entirely bug-free, what happens when someone manages to do a dump of everything that Alexa has learned about a few million users?

Isn't it the victim's Echo they want info from?

[WilliamGeorge]

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.

Re:Isn't it the victim's Echo they want info from?

[sexconker]

Amazon likely doesn't want to reveal what it's recording (everything) and how long it holds onto it (forever).

Re:Isn't it the victim's Echo they want info from?

[Jaime2]

More specifically, they don't want to let potential buyers know that their Alexa recordings might some day be "Exhibit A" in their divorce proceedings.

Re:Isn't it the victim's Echo they want info from?

[Spy Handler]

Amazon likely doesn't want to reveal what it's recording (everything) and how long it holds onto it (forever).

This, pretty much. People might have second thoughts about buying one if they realized Amazon records *everything*, forever.

I'm far from a legal expert but doesn't the gov't already have the power to subpoena library records to see if a defendant checked out books on poison or bombs?

Re:Isn't it the victim's Echo they want info from?

[sexconker]

You can monitor it, but is it encrypted? Voice at the quality the Echo records can be compressed down a lot. The Echo has enough processing power to filter data (as in, throw out boring data / near silence) and compress the good stuff. It can send the payload out whenever it wants.

As far as I know, no one has done useful testing. You'd have to run an Echo for some large window of time (30 days?) in an environment with lots of talking without the hotword (Alexa or whatever) and compare to an environment without much talking. Then you'd need to compare the amount of data sent out and try to correlate it with the amount of data it should be sending out based on the use of "Alexa" and the control/baseline environment unit.

Further, you're assuming it only uses your network. It could use any cell band without you knowing it, and with no obvious antenna or other hardware.
And what if the Echo only starts spying on you in excess when triggered by Amazon or some criteria (e.g., the Echo hears you say "Trump")? Your network monitoring only tells you how much data has gone out, ti doesn't tell you how much data could be sent out in the future or what the data contains.

In this day and age, do you really trust a corporation to respect your privacy?
Do you really trust an always-on, internet-connected microphone to not be spying on you?

First amendment ? WTH ?

[aepervius]

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 .

Re:First amendment ? WTH ?

[Anubis IV]

The summary does a poor job of explaining Amazon's point (which isn't to say it's a good point anyway). Amazon doesn't seem to be saying that Alexa has rights, so much as it's saying that you or I or anyone else who owns an Echo has rights, and that those rights would be trampled if this warrant was served.

Their line of argumentation seems to be the following:
1) People have a First Amendment right to say and express anything they want in the privacy of their home (which is true)

2) If people aren't secure in their privacy, we've stripped them of their right to express themselves freely (also true)

3) If the police could hear anything anyone has said, it would have a "chilling effect" because people wouldn't be secure in their privacy (yup)

4) The police are asking for days' worth of audio without any direct evidence it has anything to do with the crime (true, I guess)

5) Thus, if they granted the police access to those recordings, they would be compromising the rights of Alexa users everywhere (wait...what?)

The problem with their logic is, of course, that the police aren't forcing anyone to buy an Alexa device. If I choose to purchase a device that, by design, records everything I say, then I've voluntarily sacrificed my right to privacy in exchange for the benefits afforded by the device. It's not the police's fault that I've done so, and they're entirely within their rights to seek a warrant for the information that I've served up on a platter.

This isn't blanket police surveillance, like Amazon appears to be asserting. This is a blanket devaluation of and disregard for the importance of privacy. Amazon is trying to protect us from the consequences of our poor choices, not because they're interested in protecting our interests, but rather because their business depends on having no consequences for using their products. If people actually understood just how creepy Alexa and similar products are, they'd stop inviting them into their homes. Amazon is worried that a case like this will shine light on Alexa's privacy-destroying behavior.

Sacrificing one's privacy should never be treated lightly.

Re:First amendment ? WTH ?

[DerekLyons]

The problem with their logic is, of course, that the police aren't forcing anyone to buy an Alexa device.

o.0 That's not a problem with their logic - that's something utterly irrelevant that you've pulled out of thin air.
 

If I choose to purchase a device that, by design, records everything I say, then I've voluntarily sacrificed my right to privacy in exchange for the benefits afforded by the device.

That's an assertion on your part, not a fact.
 

It's not the police's fault that I've done so, and they're entirely within their rights to seek a warrant for the information that I've served up on a platter.

Yes... and no. The police certainly are within their rights to seek a warrant to obtain information so long as is it relative to the case. They may not however use warrants to conduct fishing expeditions on the off-chance that information might be found that might be relevant to the case. Though they phrase it in First Amendment terms, that's the heart of Amazon's argument - they police have not established that the recordings are material to the case, and thus have no legal right to make a blanket request for private information.

Third-party exception

[russotto]

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.

not buying it

[supernova87a]

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?

The spin that title implies is a problem

[D'Eyncourt]

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:

The heart of Amazon's claim is that Alexa devices could provide insights into a person's entire life, and having two days worth of audio would be an unreasonable invasion of that privacy. Knowing that law enforcement has the ability to request data from these devices and peruse them at will would have a chilling effect on people using the services--which clearly would be bad news for Amazon's business.

"Such government demands inevitably chill users from exercising their First Amendment rights to seek and receive information and expressive content in the privacy of their own home," Amazon lawyers wrote, "conduct which lies at the core of the Constitution."

[adding bold and underlining, clearing up smartquotes and another annoyances]

Does Alexa and clones violate wiretap laws?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

History in the making....

[WolfgangVL]

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

Simple defense

[PPH]

Bates should just marry Alexa. She can't be compelled to testify against her spouse.

Heck, she's already got his credit card.