Posted on 01/04/2017 12:27:07 PM PST by Swordmaker
The matter implicating Amazon's Echo is prosaic, by comparison. While investigating a homicide committed in a private home in Bentonville, Arkansas, the police noticed that the homeowner—and prime suspect—was something of an electronics junkie. Among his devices was an Amazon Echo, an "always listening" device that, when triggered, records ambient sound and stores the recording on Amazon's cloud. The police thought that selected recordings might help fill some gaps in their investigation. Amazon refused to hand them over.
The information available about the Bentonville case suggests two distinct problems. The police request may be overbroad, in which case Amazon is fully justified in refusing to comply until it is narrowed. But Amazon is also reportedly standing on principle, claiming that the privacy rights of Echo users would justify its refusal to comply even with an appropriately tailored warrant.
The difference in the principles at stake explains why Apple was right in refusing to help the FBI save lives from a potential, imminent terrorist attack, while Amazon's refusal to help clear an isolated crime whose victim is already dead is a mistake.
"The difference in the principles at stake explains why Apple was right in refusing to help the FBI save lives from a potential, imminent terrorist attack, while Amazon's refusal to help clear an isolated crime whose victim is already dead is a mistake."
The FBI attempted to seize control of a team of Apple's engineers—the tech-sector's dominant "mode of production." Their motivation was sound—preventing further terror attacks on Americans—but their demand was unreasonable. American capitalism respects and protects private ownership of the modes of production. Commandeering an Apple engineering team is no different from seizing a manufacturing plant—not because the owner did anything wrong, but rather to serve some purpose deemed critical to the national interest.
The schools of economic organization under which such seizures are acceptable—even encouraged—are not approaches that we should want to adopt. There have been countries that maintained the illusion of private ownership of productive assets, but in reality only let private parties operate those facilities for the benefit of "the nation." When their governments decided that "the nation" needed to divert their use, the collective good compelled their diversion, and the private "owners" were required to comply.
The technical name for such an organization of a nation's industry is national socialism; it helped Mussolini get the trains to run on time and it allowed Hitler to rescue the basket case of an economy he inherited from the Weimar Republic. History has shown, however, that is also has a terrible dark side. When the government is empowered to commandeer and redirect private resources in the name of the common good, freedom and human rights suffer greatly. As unobjectionable—and even laudable—as the FBI's request may have been, it is inconsistent with the cause of freedom.
The Bentonville police, on the other hand, are simply asking Amazon to turn over data already in Amazon's possession. Amazon's refusal rests upon its desire to protect its customer's privacy—both as a matter of principle and as a matter of sound business practice. Requests of this sort are hardly unusual. They arise, for example, whenever the police ask a bank to open a safety deposit box.
Obviously, it infringes the holder's privacy rights—but were the police never allowed to open these boxes, they would soon overflow with physical evidence of significant crimes. American courts have considerable experience balancing these concerns on a case-by-case basis. If the Bentonville courts decide that disclosure is warranted here, Amazon should comply.
The conflict between technology and law is likely to be a defining feature of the twenty-first century. If we are to remain a free society, we must apply the right principles to the resolution of all such conflicts.
Commentary by Bruce Abramson, Ph.D., J.D., a technology lawyer and expert witness in private practice. He is the author of Digital Phoenix (MIT Press) and The Secret Circuit (Rowman & Littlefield), and numerous articles on the interplay among technology, business, law and public policy. He is also a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, and director of policy at the Iron Dome Alliance. Follow him on Twitter @bdabramson.
In a real way, all this technology gives police the ability to do something that gives me the creeps: Effectively travel back in time and scrutinize the past almost like a multi-camera video recording.
I wonder where this will be in 50 years. Can any remote semblance of freedom remain?
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
The refusal means that they ARE recording and storing EVERYTHING that is said within earshot of this device. Otherwise, they would say they do not have the info. But they DO have it. Creepy.
“Effectively travel back in time and scrutinize the past”
I ditto that sentiment!
Even now so many people and companies are so risk adverse that a single wrong decision can destroy an entire career. Everyone is so arrogant they believe they have never made a mistake in their lives.
People that try 100 things and get 1 thing right are considered losers compared to someone that has never tried anything so they never got anything right but never got anything wrong.
Shades of Orwells "1984".
Amazon is right to fight it. If they don't, they will effectively designate echo as a bug. In that case, it is dead technology. They won't be able to give it away.
Does Amazon (or Apple for that matter) feel so strongly in your privacy rights as to not utilize what their devices record for the purposes of marketing their and other parties’ products and services to you?
At least the Stasi didn't charge $180 to put their monitoring devices in your house.
Apple does NOT use the data to market to you. YOU are the customer, not the product. I have never had SIRI try to sell me something. Never. Siri has never pushed an Apple product. It is purely an information service for Apple customers.
The Amazon Echo is designed to steer its owners to Amazon products and sell them to them. Amazon makes no pretense that is what it is for.
That TV show Continuum 2012 was right on the money.
There is a bit of a creep factor in this. Right now, it is just short snippets of sound bytes when triggered (by saying “Alexa”). That’s mainly based on the sheer amount of storage that would be necessary to store anything more. That being said, technology moves fast. It won’t be long before we have our communication being recorded in long loops.
On a side note, I have a couple of these. Love them. I can control almost every light, ceiling fan, temperature, as well as grocery list, music, wiki, searches, etc in my house. It’s pretty amazing!
Oh yes there is a difference. A big difference.
Commandeering an engineering team is involuntary servitude also known as slavery.
Amazon will sell your information to anyone but won’t help the police.
#10 Is that Angela Merkel in front in the brown outfit?.....
#11 I have never had SIRI try to sell me something. Never. Siri has never pushed an Apple product.
SIRI whispers in your ear when you are asleep.
“Buy Apple products” : )
I wonder if the police have any recourse...like interfering with a homicide investigation?
I already have smart appliances and thermostat in my house. When I want the heat on I (a smart guy) walk by the appliance and.....turn it on.
I love technology, used to build my on computers. But I value what little privacy I have left.
That is pure speculation on your part without benefit of any supporting evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.