The most bizarre piece of news I read this week pertained to Amazon’s legal battle to defend the First Amendment rights of its responding technology, the Echo.
Amazon’s Echo has a voice responding system similar to Apple’s Siri program.
A recent case highlights just how much skepticism and care we need to treat this new technology with when it comes to our privacy. While in this case it is good for the police to have evidence in murder trials, it is not hard to imagine other, murkier scenarios.
The case revolves around James Andrew Bates and the deceased Victor Collins. Police suspect Bates was responsible for the death of Collins and have requested all communications involving the Echo and any Amazon transactions the day of Collins’ death.
Police believe that through a wake-up function, the Echo may have captured an audio recording of the incident. In the murder trial, the defendant’s Echo had been requested as evidence to figure out what the defendant had told the Echo or had requested leading up to the murder of the victim.
Amazon argued that Alexa, the Siri to Amazon’s Echo, has First Amendment rights, and thus the defendant does not need to give up the Echo as evidence to the crime. The transactions were handed over without any problem. When it came to the Echo, though, Amazon was more hesitant.
According to Amazon, the user’s requests to Alexa are protected free speech. The responses Alexa provides in return are also protected free speech. Amazon said if the data could not be found elsewhere, then the company would provide it in the end.
This strikes me as fishy. It makes me wonder if maybe Amazon could suffer from repercussions if the data returned points to Bates using his Echo to receive information on how to commit murder or even if the Echo did indeed record the murder. However, this idea brings me back to every Apple user’s first request to Siri: “Hey, Siri, where can I hide a dead body?” Siri answers with several nearby locations.
Amazon was not allowed to continue its fight for free speech because Bates handed his Echo over willingly.
This is not the first time large technology companies have fought with the law over privacy rights. Judges have requested emails, texts, phone call data and any other type of evidence a technological device might hold.
In 2016, the FBI battled with Apple over unlocking a phone that could have vital information regarding a terrorist wattack in San Bernadino, California.
Apple refused to unlock the phone because it invaded privacy, despite the great possibility of information within. It appears that using technology has created more privacy rights for companies than for ourselves. It’s hard to believe that companies would refuse to cooperate and help gain evidence purely for the preservation of the First Amendment and any other privacy clauses.
I don’t want to jump the gun and call out any conspiracy theories about technology giants and the government, but if it comes to that point in the future, you heard it here first.
mmgarbac@umail.iu.edu
