5 ms·

I don't understand Amazon's position here. They're being asked for evidence in a murder investigation. I don't see how the first amendment could be construed to

by lolc 10y ago

I don't understand Amazon's position here. They're being asked for evidence in a murder investigation. I don't see how the first amendment could be construed to protect against this. The data being asked for concerns the two involved individuals and the request doesn't seem overly broad. What this case does show is that Amazon puts a listening device in your home which has a very acute understanding of your live. As they argue themselves.

jitix 10y ago
They have very good business reasons to do this. If they do end up giving out the data they will most probably face a severe dip in sales as most people (even those who aren't that privacy focused) will be scared of buying it. I've been putting off buying one of these devices (Echo/Google Home, etc) just becasue I dont like someone listening to me all the time. But I'm usually a bit paranoid about privacy.
- pc86 10y ago
  I'm not sold on Alexa personally. I can guarantee with 100% certainty that if this case moves against Amazon I will never knowingly be in the vicinity of one of these devices. Not because I plan on killing someone, but because of the litany of privacy implications. If it goes the other way, I might get one because I think it would be useful but I'm still very worried about the privacy aspect, and I know my wife would be more lax than I - not to mention I don't want to have to be vigilant about every comment I make in my own home.
ibgib 10y ago
The complexity of the issue concerns the specific use in this instance and its application to broader uses in other possible cases. I think they're fighting/trying to fight future fights with this approach. I say this because their current stance is relatively weak when regarding this case alone (IMO obviously). The guy was murdered, Alexa is a recording device, they want to see the recordings. This isn't overly broad in this case, but in the future it may be attempted to be applied to other cases walking down the proverbial slippery slope. This is of course in addition to them already fighting a technophobic AI battle in consumers' minds, gradually introducing AI functionality to the masses. This, I think, is largely why they are so reluctant to introduce push notifications even though so many fellow Alexa Skill developers would like it. In the end though, if I were murdered and Alexa was in the room - I'd want them to give them the darn recordings. Which makes me wonder, what does the family of the victim want?
delinka 10y ago
I suspect they believe they're fighting against a potential chilling of speech. Similar to how constant surveillance affects people's words and behavior. But to me it seems Amazon has more of a business problem than a legal one: if customers know Alexa is "listening" and that law enforcement can get at the recordings, they'll be less likely to speak openly around the device, or just turn it off and never buy one again.
- arenaninja 10y ago
  > they'll be less likely to speak openly around the device, or just turn it off and never buy one again. Better yet, never get one in the first place! Heck, if this doesn't get buried by the weekend sales will drop starting next week.
IanDrake 10y ago
If they lose this case, this entire product category goes in the shitter. No one wants a government listening device in their house, which is essentially what this is if the government can issue a search warrant for recordings.
- x1798DE 10y ago
  I would love for that to be the case, but I really doubt that it would be. No one wants a government tracking device on them at all times, but I don't see people abandoning cell phones en masse because the government can get a warrant for your location data from cell phone data towers and/or Google.
  - cgriswald 10y ago
    I see a huge difference between a device that records its location (not mine, even if the two are largely correlated) and one that records the things I say in my own home. A cell phone can be used to record your voice or even video, but there are technical, legal, and logistical hurdles to cross to enable that functionality for a given phone. Alexa, in contrast, is always on with the technical and logistical hurdles already leapt and the legal one a fairly low bar if Amazon loses here. I can definitely see people abandoning a brand of phone that features always on audio and/or video recording that can later be used by law enforcement (although the frequency with which gf uses snapchat, maybe not...)
- deong 10y ago
  I think you just argued that Americans won't buy a phone.
- harryh 10y ago
  Would you like to make a wager supporting this view? I will bet you $1000 that combined sales of Amazon Echos + Google Homes will be bigger in 2017 than they were in 2016. (The bet is off and no one wins if Amazon wins the case as your prediction becomes untestable.)
  - 10y ago
mcphage 10y ago
So, it seems highly likely that the device doesn't have the information the police want. Barring any nasty surprises, Alexa only stores the actual requests made to it. However, Amazon doesn't want to win this case based on the technical details of this specific device, because maybe a future device will store more—and then they'd need to fight this battle all over again. So they're trying to make an argument that doesn't rest on the technical details of their current devices. If they win that, then they won't have to worry about this kind of case later.
- curun1r 10y ago
  That part makes sense, but it would seem that the fourth amendment (or even the fifth) would be the one they'd want to cite. The first amendment would only make sense if they government was trying to punish someone for the content of their speech. That isn't the case here. The government is trying to punish someone for murdering someone else. That is in no way protected under the first amendment. The fourth amendment is usually the one where judges find privacy rights. The first amendment is the opposite...it guarantees you the right to be public without being punished for it. It would even make more sense to argue that the fifth amendment protections on self-incrimination cover these recordings, though that would be a really hard sell considering wire taps don't enjoy that kind of protection.
  - harryh 10y ago
    The 5th amendment says you can't be forced to testify against yourself at a trial. It says nothing about things you say outside of a trial being used against you. It definitely doesn't apply here.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Furthermore, as I've read some of the commentary around this case, it's pretty clear that--even in technical circles--a lot of people assume that everything that's said in Alexa's earshot goes back to the mothership. I think it's a safe bet that the typical consumer isn't up on nuances like listening for a keyword is a local operation. Barring "Alexa: How do I clean up blood stains?" there's unlikely to be anything here (and would a Google search be any different?) But, if there were something incriminating in Alexa queries, the last thing Amazon wants is the inevitable headlines about how someone was convicted based on an Alexa recording which many would read as being an always-on ambient record.

by lolc 10y ago

jitix 10y ago

They have very good business reasons to do this. If they do end up giving out the data they will most probably face a severe dip in sales as most people (even those who aren't that privacy focused) will be scared of buying it. I've been putting off buying one of these devices (Echo/Google Home, etc) just becasue I dont like someone listening to me all the time. But I'm usually a bit paranoid about privacy.

pc86 10y ago
I'm not sold on Alexa personally. I can guarantee with 100% certainty that if this case moves against Amazon I will never knowingly be in the vicinity of one of these devices. Not because I plan on killing someone, but because of the litany of privacy implications. If it goes the other way, I might get one because I think it would be useful but I'm still very worried about the privacy aspect, and I know my wife would be more lax than I - not to mention I don't want to have to be vigilant about every comment I make in my own home.

ibgib 10y ago

The complexity of the issue concerns the specific use in this instance and its application to broader uses in other possible cases. I think they're fighting/trying to fight future fights with this approach. I say this because their current stance is relatively weak when regarding this case alone (IMO obviously). The guy was murdered, Alexa is a recording device, they want to see the recordings. This isn't overly broad in this case, but in the future it may be attempted to be applied to other cases walking down the proverbial slippery slope. This is of course in addition to them already fighting a technophobic AI battle in consumers' minds, gradually introducing AI functionality to the masses. This, I think, is largely why they are so reluctant to introduce push notifications even though so many fellow Alexa Skill developers would like it. In the end though, if I were murdered and Alexa was in the room - I'd want them to give them the darn recordings. Which makes me wonder, what does the family of the victim want?

delinka 10y ago

I suspect they believe they're fighting against a potential chilling of speech. Similar to how constant surveillance affects people's words and behavior. But to me it seems Amazon has more of a business problem than a legal one: if customers know Alexa is "listening" and that law enforcement can get at the recordings, they'll be less likely to speak openly around the device, or just turn it off and never buy one again.

arenaninja 10y ago
> they'll be less likely to speak openly around the device, or just turn it off and never buy one again. Better yet, never get one in the first place! Heck, if this doesn't get buried by the weekend sales will drop starting next week.

IanDrake 10y ago

If they lose this case, this entire product category goes in the shitter. No one wants a government listening device in their house, which is essentially what this is if the government can issue a search warrant for recordings.

x1798DE 10y ago
I would love for that to be the case, but I really doubt that it would be. No one wants a government tracking device on them at all times, but I don't see people abandoning cell phones en masse because the government can get a warrant for your location data from cell phone data towers and/or Google.
- cgriswald 10y ago
  I see a huge difference between a device that records its location (not mine, even if the two are largely correlated) and one that records the things I say in my own home. A cell phone can be used to record your voice or even video, but there are technical, legal, and logistical hurdles to cross to enable that functionality for a given phone. Alexa, in contrast, is always on with the technical and logistical hurdles already leapt and the legal one a fairly low bar if Amazon loses here. I can definitely see people abandoning a brand of phone that features always on audio and/or video recording that can later be used by law enforcement (although the frequency with which gf uses snapchat, maybe not...)
deong 10y ago
I think you just argued that Americans won't buy a phone.
harryh 10y ago
Would you like to make a wager supporting this view? I will bet you $1000 that combined sales of Amazon Echos + Google Homes will be bigger in 2017 than they were in 2016. (The bet is off and no one wins if Amazon wins the case as your prediction becomes untestable.)
- 10y ago

mcphage 10y ago

So, it seems highly likely that the device doesn't have the information the police want. Barring any nasty surprises, Alexa only stores the actual requests made to it. However, Amazon doesn't want to win this case based on the technical details of this specific device, because maybe a future device will store more—and then they'd need to fight this battle all over again. So they're trying to make an argument that doesn't rest on the technical details of their current devices. If they win that, then they won't have to worry about this kind of case later.

curun1r 10y ago
That part makes sense, but it would seem that the fourth amendment (or even the fifth) would be the one they'd want to cite. The first amendment would only make sense if they government was trying to punish someone for the content of their speech. That isn't the case here. The government is trying to punish someone for murdering someone else. That is in no way protected under the first amendment. The fourth amendment is usually the one where judges find privacy rights. The first amendment is the opposite...it guarantees you the right to be public without being punished for it. It would even make more sense to argue that the fifth amendment protections on self-incrimination cover these recordings, though that would be a really hard sell considering wire taps don't enjoy that kind of protection.
- harryh 10y ago
  The 5th amendment says you can't be forced to testify against yourself at a trial. It says nothing about things you say outside of a trial being used against you. It definitely doesn't apply here.
ghaff 10y ago
Furthermore, as I've read some of the commentary around this case, it's pretty clear that--even in technical circles--a lot of people assume that everything that's said in Alexa's earshot goes back to the mothership. I think it's a safe bet that the typical consumer isn't up on nuances like listening for a keyword is a local operation. Barring "Alexa: How do I clean up blood stains?" there's unlikely to be anything here (and would a Google search be any different?) But, if there were something incriminating in Alexa queries, the last thing Amazon wants is the inevitable headlines about how someone was convicted based on an Alexa recording which many would read as being an always-on ambient record.