A judge has ordered Amazon to hand over Echo records to assist with a murder investigation. When Christine Sullivan was found dead in her backyard after being stabbed multiple times, New Hampshire requested for data held by Amazon to be released to help solve the crime.
An Amazon spokesperson said earlier it would not release the recordings "without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us."
The judge agrees.
So he issued just such a legal demand.
[...] "Amazon does not seek to obstruct any lawful investigation but rather seeks to protect the privacy rights of its customers when the government is seeking their data from Amazon, especially when that data may include expressive content protected by the First Amendment," company lawyers wrote at the time.
It is yet to respond to the New Hampshire Court order.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 15 2018, @05:14PM (1 child)
> the government is seeking their data from Amazon, especially when that data may include expressive content protected by the First Amendment
IANAL, but that seems constitutionaly wrong.
People talk. The govt can't prevent them - First
Amazon records people who agree to be spied on - None
Govt want to hear those recordings - Amazon's property (Fourth) or People's property (Fourth) or People incriminating themselves (Fifth)
Where is the expressive content in automated Big Data recordings ?
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Friday November 16 2018, @12:22AM
The problem with this is that there will always be people who DIDN'T agree to be spied on getting recorded.
Do you know who has an Echo in their home so you can avoid speaking while there? It's not like anyone puts a notice on their front door to inform visitors.