4 ms·

That is a very strange and questionable interpretation of Kyllo v US. It seems like you're just out to spread FUD. In Kyllo, the question was whether the gener

That is a very strange and questionable interpretation of Kyllo v US. It seems like you're just out to spread FUD. In Kyllo, the question was whether the general public used thermal imaging to look at people. Even if every household had an Alexa, that doesn't mean the general public uses Alexa to listen to people (just that Amazon does). By your logic, the Kyllo decision should have been the opposite since the general public does emit unshielded heat signatures (slash use voice assistants) but doesn't observe those signatures (slash/process receive voice assistant requests).

pdkl95 9y ago
> a very strange and questionable interpretation Two lawyers I've talked to about agree with my interpretation. Dan Geer has also been warning[1] about the consequences of the Kyllo decision. > that doesn't mean the general public uses Alexa to listen to people The Kyllo decision doesn't dep[end on the use, only if the public is generally familiar with the technology. I linked to the court's opinion in my previous [1]; the complete opinion is at the end of section (b) on the first page: >> obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 512, constitutes a search--at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. The court did not specify how the general public was using the technology or the purpose for using it. Justice Stevens dissent specifically addresses this problem > Despite the Court's attempt to draw a line that is "not only firm but also bright," ante, at 12, the contours of its new rule are uncertain because its protection apparently dissipates as soon as the relevant technology is "in general public use," ante, at 6-7. [...] it seems likely that the threat to privacy will grow, rather than recede, as the use of intrusive equipment becomes more readily available. > the general public does emit unshielded heat signatures This is irrelevant. Of course they do. However, the court observed that the general public \ was not using thermal imaging cameras to receive those emissions, and thus the had an expectation of privacy about their heat signatures. Note that this expectation co9ud change if most cellphones start including the newer "multispectral imaging" devices. > but doesn't observe those signatures People using an Alexa do expect that some of their speech will be recorded and transmitted to a large business over the internet. [1] http://geer.tinho.net/geer.source.27iv17.txt http://geer.tinho.net/geer.source.27iv17.txt

pdkl95 9y ago

> a very strange and questionable interpretation Two lawyers I've talked to about agree with my interpretation. Dan Geer has also been warning[1] about the consequences of the Kyllo decision. > that doesn't mean the general public uses Alexa to listen to people The Kyllo decision doesn't dep[end on the use, only if the public is generally familiar with the technology. I linked to the court's opinion in my previous [1]; the complete opinion is at the end of section (b) on the first page: >> obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 512, constitutes a search--at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. The court did not specify how the general public was using the technology or the purpose for using it. Justice Stevens dissent specifically addresses this problem > Despite the Court's attempt to draw a line that is "not only firm but also bright," ante, at 12, the contours of its new rule are uncertain because its protection apparently dissipates as soon as the relevant technology is "in general public use," ante, at 6-7. [...] it seems likely that the threat to privacy will grow, rather than recede, as the use of intrusive equipment becomes more readily available. > the general public does emit unshielded heat signatures This is irrelevant. Of course they do. However, the court observed that the general public \ was not using thermal imaging cameras to receive those emissions, and thus the had an expectation of privacy about their heat signatures. Note that this expectation co9ud change if most cellphones start including the newer "multispectral imaging" devices. > but doesn't observe those signatures People using an Alexa do expect that some of their speech will be recorded and transmitted to a large business over the internet. [1] http://geer.tinho.net/geer.source.27iv17.txt http://geer.tinho.net/geer.source.27iv17.txt