4 ms·

A warrant is not the same as a subpoena. But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea. If people and corporations don't assert t

A warrant is not the same as a subpoena. But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea. If people and corporations don't assert their rights against the will of the state, they erode the foundation of our shared liberties.

forgetsusername 10y ago
>But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea Very much agree, because there's a difference between being "innocent" and actually innocent. Only the former matters, it's subjective (jury/judge) and unknown to everyone but you, ex ante. Sometimes the police are more invested in finding a criminal rather than the criminal.
- zubspace 10y ago
  Usually a warrant will only last a short time and the issuer must name a specific thing they are looking for. In this case it's clear that they only need to provide the data for a specific person. I also believe that Amazon could provide that data alone. So what makes them refuse?
  - jschwartzi 10y ago
    Because if they don't, I'll tell all my friends that Alexa is being used to monitor their speech for law enforcement, and to not say anything incriminating around one.
zubspace 10y ago
I'm not a lawyer, so excuse me if I'm asking trivial things: To obtain a search warrant or arrest warrant, the law enforcement officer must demonstrate probable cause that a search or seizure is justified. An authority, usually a magistrate, will consider the totality of circumstances and determine whether to issue the warrant. [1] I agree to your statement, if there is no search warrant. But in this case an authority already decided that the search is justified. What use are search warrants then if they can all be refused? I understand, that even a magistrate or whatever can make errors. But if this happens a lot, the consequence will be, that search warrants are issued without second thought and the person/company affected by the search should always deny it first. I'm all for privacy and defending individual rights, but cases like this make a farce out of court orders and the whole jurisdictional process. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
- FroshKiller 10y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, either. But I don't think it's the case that any warrant can just be refused, more that the warrant itself can be challenged based on a lot of factors, like the burden placed on a company to deliver some evidence.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Do you mean farce out of the judicial process? It seems fairly likely that jurisdiction is what Amazon ended up challenging.
- phil21 10y ago
  > But if this happens a lot, the consequence will be, that search warrants are issued without second thought and the person/company affected by the search should always deny it first. I think you'll find the vast majority of search warrants aren't even read by the judge signing them. When I owned a (hosting) company it was blatantly obvious reading them, and we had a policy of challenging them when possible. The whole search warrant/subpoena process is a joke. There is essentially no oversight on law enforcement whatsoever here and the whole trope of "but a judge reviewed it!" is a complete and utter outright lie in many cases.

forgetsusername 10y ago

>But look, "the innocent have nothing to hide" is an insidious and wrong idea Very much agree, because there's a difference between being "innocent" and actually innocent. Only the former matters, it's subjective (jury/judge) and unknown to everyone but you, ex ante. Sometimes the police are more invested in finding a criminal rather than the criminal.

zubspace 10y ago
Usually a warrant will only last a short time and the issuer must name a specific thing they are looking for. In this case it's clear that they only need to provide the data for a specific person. I also believe that Amazon could provide that data alone. So what makes them refuse?
- jschwartzi 10y ago
  Because if they don't, I'll tell all my friends that Alexa is being used to monitor their speech for law enforcement, and to not say anything incriminating around one.

zubspace 10y ago

I'm not a lawyer, so excuse me if I'm asking trivial things: To obtain a search warrant or arrest warrant, the law enforcement officer must demonstrate probable cause that a search or seizure is justified. An authority, usually a magistrate, will consider the totality of circumstances and determine whether to issue the warrant. [1] I agree to your statement, if there is no search warrant. But in this case an authority already decided that the search is justified. What use are search warrants then if they can all be refused? I understand, that even a magistrate or whatever can make errors. But if this happens a lot, the consequence will be, that search warrants are issued without second thought and the person/company affected by the search should always deny it first. I'm all for privacy and defending individual rights, but cases like this make a farce out of court orders and the whole jurisdictional process. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

FroshKiller 10y ago
I'm not a lawyer, either. But I don't think it's the case that any warrant can just be refused, more that the warrant itself can be challenged based on a lot of factors, like the burden placed on a company to deliver some evidence.
maxerickson 10y ago
Do you mean farce out of the judicial process? It seems fairly likely that jurisdiction is what Amazon ended up challenging.
phil21 10y ago
> But if this happens a lot, the consequence will be, that search warrants are issued without second thought and the person/company affected by the search should always deny it first. I think you'll find the vast majority of search warrants aren't even read by the judge signing them. When I owned a (hosting) company it was blatantly obvious reading them, and we had a policy of challenging them when possible. The whole search warrant/subpoena process is a joke. There is essentially no oversight on law enforcement whatsoever here and the whole trope of "but a judge reviewed it!" is a complete and utter outright lie in many cases.