3 ms·
But doesn't that apply to, eg, bank records or other third party documents? It's been US policy that third party record have no expectation of privacy.
by SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
But doesn't that apply to, eg, bank records or other third party documents?
It's been US policy that third party record have no expectation of privacy.
- vidarh 10y agoBank records would presumably not be considered expressive speech, and so it would be hard to argue that it would be protected under the 1st. And as you point out, the courts have already pretty much nixed privacy protections of third party records under the 4th. I have no idea if Amazon has a snowballs chance in hell of making this work, but it's an interesting angle, and also seemingly their only potentially viable angle because of what you mention. The point is that they're not arguing for privacy. If their argument is accepted, then privacy of the data is an incidental necessity in order to avoid the chilling effect on speech of removing the privacy. It may very well prove entirely futile, but at least they're trying (though I have no illusion that their reasons are selfless - they have a strong vested interest in making sure people will trust having these devices in their homes)