Well, they're already trying to get it without a warrant. Are they worried about it getting thrown out?
Why didn't the judge just issue either a warrant or subpoena?
A warrant would remove a lot of the questionability of conducting a search, and a subpoena would simply tell Amazon to hand over any recordings they had.
The insistence on a "search in lieu of a search warrant" is the problem.
Until you trigger your device, there is no recording to keep. Unless the victim triggered the Echo, either intentionally or not, nothing streamed to Amazon for them TO keep.
All your questions about Brazilian fart porn? They have those, but not the sounds of you using it. Well, unless you called out to your invisible girlfriend in the throes of... passion?
Tell you what- if they find recordings at Amazon of the victim's struggle for life? Unless she asked Alexa to help, I will record and post a video of me destroying my phone.
Because it's stated outright in the terms of service and description of how it works that that DOES NOT HAPPEN.
And if it is happening, I don't want that shit in my house.
Yes, it records everything... in 1- or 2-second blocks, which it listens to for "Alexa", then immediately erases, because there is very little memory either in the Alexa device, or allotted to the program on your phone/tablet.
Nothing is kept unless you say the "wake word." Anything you say after the wake word is said is streamed to Amazon for analysis (and stored, maybe permanently). Until that point, even though everything is recorded, nothing is kept. Amazon has neither the interest or money to keep your conversation about the texture of your toilet paper, unless you ask Alexa to order some more.
The property belongs to their next of kin, or maybe even their landlord. The folks that can claim their estate DO have constitutional rights, and they might even be infringed upon, seeing as how it's not that uncommon for people to visit relatives.
Just because someone else used to own my stuff, doesn't mean that the cops can rifle through it without due process.
I mean, damn. All they would have to do is ask permission from the current owner. Who doesn't want to help the police find their relative's (or tenant's) killer?
...No, they don't keep a recording of everything. Amazon (and Google) are very open and clear about how the devices work: they do listen all the time (that's literally the point), but they only record in seconds-long bursts. Each "chunk" is analyzed for a "wake word," like "Alexa" or "Hey, Google." Only after the wake word is recognized will any audio be streamed to the actual service. The analysis and "chunk" recording is all done within the device.
Unless the murder victim asked Alexa to call 911 (or the murder-noises were reasonably similar to it), there won't be a recording to find. Unfortunately for this victim, no one is interested in paying the cost of storing the random noises and boring conversations that occur around your house.
There are many security firms with a vested interest in proving otherwise, since that would help them sell their "Alexa Protection Plan," but it's just not true.
Sorry. Amazon and Google don't care what you say unless you ask them to.
That's why I said those specific lawsuits. Anything the platform owners do (or solicit others to do) is, and obviously should be, on their own heads.
And in such a case, it also wouldn't make sense to go after the platform users, which is equivalent to prosecuting the platform owners for things the users did.
Once again, the platforms are immune from these specific lawsuits, the people making the ads are not.
Newspapers are also immune from false advertising charges (if they didn't create the ads), but the company that says their health drink cures cancer is not.
Ford is immune from charges of robbing the bank, the getaway driver is not.
Rust-Oleum is immune from charges of vandalism, the person who drew a giant penis on the wall of City Hall is not.
It's not difficult: the people who actually break the law are the ones at risk, not the person who made the tool.
...I also play a number of those games, as well as several others. In exchange, I don't give a rat's ass about being "competitive," just having fun with the friends I've made over the years, and the new ones I make over time.
Frankly, I can only stand playing the same game for several days at a time before it starts feeling repetitive. Especially since a large proportion of the MMOs I play have a lot of grind involved. I'm only willing to kill so many horned rabbits to level up and open the next area.
...And this is one of the problems with this sort of story.
Gamergate was driven by misogynists, assholes, and idiots, but that doesn't automatically mean they were Nazis. It doesn't even mean they were white nationalists. It just means they were misogynists, assholes, and idiots.
Of the tiny, but very vocal, segment of gamers that tried to make Gamergate meaningful, only an even tinier portion were Nazis/skinheads/white nationalists. They may have even tried to recruit using the furor (hah).
But in the end, it was just an angry ex-boyfriend trying to claim his girlfriend was part of a conspiracy. Literally, just a sad, angry, little man. To claim it was more is to give the movement too much credit.
The SCOTUS, using it's constitutional duty to review "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority," came to the decision that Congress had the right to delegate it's powers in the suit J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928). Including the power to alter what a law covers, as long as there are clear and limited guidelines involved.
The DMCA is awful, bizarre, and completely constitutional, since copyright and it's management is a power granted to Congress, that they (constitutionally!) partially delegated to the Copyright Office/Library of Congress.
Also, copyright is civil law. Not that it matters. You're either a complete moron, or an unskilled troll. Either way, I've made myself more knowledgeable about the subject.
Since you're simple, I'll try to use simple words.
The Constitution itself says you are wrong, so I'll let it speak for itself.
Article 3, section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Section 2, clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.
I think "all cases" is pretty clear, no? "All cases" includes cases about, and by, Congress. The only exception is impeachment. The Supreme Court, using it's authority to decide in "all cases", said it was permissible. Suck it up.
Another point you seem unable to comprehend is that the exemptions are EXPLICITLY allowed for within the DMCA, including the 3 year exemption cycle. Of course, I would expect that an expert such as yourself would have actually read the law you know so much about? Or at least the Cliffs Notes?
You want legal facts? Your "arguments" about the "constitutionality" of regulators would be even more pointless if not for when the Supreme Court gave itself the power to determine constitutionality. 1803, Marbury v. Madison.
If you knew anything about the Constitution, you'd know the people who wrote it considered certain powers "implicit," such as judicial review and delegation of power. How much of that power can they delegate? As much as they want, it's their power.
By your "logic," no money in the USA is valid, because it was printed by the US Mint, and only "The Congress shall have Power... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."
They aren't doing their job of running those presses!
On the post: Judge Says Amazon Needs To Hand Over Recordings Created By Murder Victim's Echo Speaker
Re: Re: Re: Fourth Amendment
Why didn't the judge just issue either a warrant or subpoena?
A warrant would remove a lot of the questionability of conducting a search, and a subpoena would simply tell Amazon to hand over any recordings they had.
The insistence on a "search in lieu of a search warrant" is the problem.
On the post: Judge Says Amazon Needs To Hand Over Recordings Created By Murder Victim's Echo Speaker
Re: Re: Re: Agreed
Until you trigger your device, there is no recording to keep. Unless the victim triggered the Echo, either intentionally or not, nothing streamed to Amazon for them TO keep.
All your questions about Brazilian fart porn? They have those, but not the sounds of you using it. Well, unless you called out to your invisible girlfriend in the throes of... passion?
Tell you what- if they find recordings at Amazon of the victim's struggle for life? Unless she asked Alexa to help, I will record and post a video of me destroying my phone.
Because it's stated outright in the terms of service and description of how it works that that DOES NOT HAPPEN.
And if it is happening, I don't want that shit in my house.
On the post: Judge Says Amazon Needs To Hand Over Recordings Created By Murder Victim's Echo Speaker
Re:
Yes, it records everything... in 1- or 2-second blocks, which it listens to for "Alexa", then immediately erases, because there is very little memory either in the Alexa device, or allotted to the program on your phone/tablet.
Nothing is kept unless you say the "wake word." Anything you say after the wake word is said is streamed to Amazon for analysis (and stored, maybe permanently). Until that point, even though everything is recorded, nothing is kept. Amazon has neither the interest or money to keep your conversation about the texture of your toilet paper, unless you ask Alexa to order some more.
On the post: Judge Says Amazon Needs To Hand Over Recordings Created By Murder Victim's Echo Speaker
Re: Fourth Amendment
The property belongs to their next of kin, or maybe even their landlord. The folks that can claim their estate DO have constitutional rights, and they might even be infringed upon, seeing as how it's not that uncommon for people to visit relatives.
Just because someone else used to own my stuff, doesn't mean that the cops can rifle through it without due process.
I mean, damn. All they would have to do is ask permission from the current owner. Who doesn't want to help the police find their relative's (or tenant's) killer?
On the post: Judge Says Amazon Needs To Hand Over Recordings Created By Murder Victim's Echo Speaker
Re: Get A Fscking Warrant
If murder isn't good enough to get a warrant, what the hell is the cop doing wrong?
And sometimes a dead body, in plain sight, still needs a warrant to be gotten for the cops to go inside a house.
Well, if the cop actually cares about the Fourth Amendment. Or at least cares about losing a whole case because they didn't have it.
On the post: Judge Says Amazon Needs To Hand Over Recordings Created By Murder Victim's Echo Speaker
Re: Agreed
...No, they don't keep a recording of everything. Amazon (and Google) are very open and clear about how the devices work: they do listen all the time (that's literally the point), but they only record in seconds-long bursts. Each "chunk" is analyzed for a "wake word," like "Alexa" or "Hey, Google." Only after the wake word is recognized will any audio be streamed to the actual service. The analysis and "chunk" recording is all done within the device.
Unless the murder victim asked Alexa to call 911 (or the murder-noises were reasonably similar to it), there won't be a recording to find. Unfortunately for this victim, no one is interested in paying the cost of storing the random noises and boring conversations that occur around your house.
There are many security firms with a vested interest in proving otherwise, since that would help them sell their "Alexa Protection Plan," but it's just not true.
Sorry. Amazon and Google don't care what you say unless you ask them to.
On the post: The US Refusing To Sign 'The Paris Call' Is Not As Big A Deal As Everyone Is Making It Out To Be
The answer is obvious...
I'm not quite sure how they propose to fight {censorship and hate speech} at the same time
It's easy: It's not censorship to suppress speech I don't like, and it's not hate speech if it's speech I do like.
On the post: New Acting Attorney General Part Of A Patent Scam Company Recently Shut Down By The FTC And Fined Millions
Re: Re: Bright side
On the post: CDA 230 Doesn't Support Habeus Petition by 'Revenge Pornographer'
Re:
That's why I said those specific lawsuits. Anything the platform owners do (or solicit others to do) is, and obviously should be, on their own heads.
And in such a case, it also wouldn't make sense to go after the platform users, which is equivalent to prosecuting the platform owners for things the users did.
On the post: CDA 230 Doesn't Support Habeus Petition by 'Revenge Pornographer'
Re:
Once again, the platforms are immune from these specific lawsuits, the people making the ads are not.
Newspapers are also immune from false advertising charges (if they didn't create the ads), but the company that says their health drink cures cancer is not.
Ford is immune from charges of robbing the bank, the getaway driver is not.
Rust-Oleum is immune from charges of vandalism, the person who drew a giant penis on the wall of City Hall is not.
It's not difficult: the people who actually break the law are the ones at risk, not the person who made the tool.
On the post: New Acting Attorney General Part Of A Patent Scam Company Recently Shut Down By The FTC And Fined Millions
Re: Re: Re: Ooh, a "failed politician"! -- He could be part HONEST, then!
On the post: NPR Posits Nazis Are Recruiting All Of Our Children In Online Games With Very Little Evidence
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Frankly, I can only stand playing the same game for several days at a time before it starts feeling repetitive. Especially since a large proportion of the MMOs I play have a lot of grind involved. I'm only willing to kill so many horned rabbits to level up and open the next area.
On the post: NPR Posits Nazis Are Recruiting All Of Our Children In Online Games With Very Little Evidence
Re:
On the post: NPR Posits Nazis Are Recruiting All Of Our Children In Online Games With Very Little Evidence
Re:
...And this is one of the problems with this sort of story.
Gamergate was driven by misogynists, assholes, and idiots, but that doesn't automatically mean they were Nazis. It doesn't even mean they were white nationalists. It just means they were misogynists, assholes, and idiots.
Of the tiny, but very vocal, segment of gamers that tried to make Gamergate meaningful, only an even tinier portion were Nazis/skinheads/white nationalists. They may have even tried to recruit using the furor (hah).
But in the end, it was just an angry ex-boyfriend trying to claim his girlfriend was part of a conspiracy. Literally, just a sad, angry, little man. To claim it was more is to give the movement too much credit.
On the post: Copyright Office Extends Anti-Circumvention DMCA Exemptions To All Filmmakers, Not Just Documentarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
The SCOTUS, using it's constitutional duty to review "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority," came to the decision that Congress had the right to delegate it's powers in the suit J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928). Including the power to alter what a law covers, as long as there are clear and limited guidelines involved.
The DMCA is awful, bizarre, and completely constitutional, since copyright and it's management is a power granted to Congress, that they (constitutionally!) partially delegated to the Copyright Office/Library of Congress.
Also, copyright is civil law. Not that it matters. You're either a complete moron, or an unskilled troll. Either way, I've made myself more knowledgeable about the subject.
Thank you.
On the post: Copyright Office Extends Anti-Circumvention DMCA Exemptions To All Filmmakers, Not Just Documentarians
Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
Since you're simple, I'll try to use simple words.
The Constitution itself says you are wrong, so I'll let it speak for itself.
Article 3, section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Section 2, clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.
I think "all cases" is pretty clear, no? "All cases" includes cases about, and by, Congress. The only exception is impeachment. The Supreme Court, using it's authority to decide in "all cases", said it was permissible. Suck it up.
Another point you seem unable to comprehend is that the exemptions are EXPLICITLY allowed for within the DMCA, including the 3 year exemption cycle. Of course, I would expect that an expert such as yourself would have actually read the law you know so much about? Or at least the Cliffs Notes?
On the post: Copyright Office Extends Anti-Circumvention DMCA Exemptions To All Filmmakers, Not Just Documentarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
You want legal facts? Your "arguments" about the "constitutionality" of regulators would be even more pointless if not for when the Supreme Court gave itself the power to determine constitutionality. 1803, Marbury v. Madison.
If you knew anything about the Constitution, you'd know the people who wrote it considered certain powers "implicit," such as judicial review and delegation of power. How much of that power can they delegate? As much as they want, it's their power.
On the post: Copyright Office Extends Anti-Circumvention DMCA Exemptions To All Filmmakers, Not Just Documentarians
Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
They aren't doing their job of running those presses!
On the post: Georgia Government Officials Celebrate Halloween By Engaging In Pointless Hassling Of Sex Offenders
Re: Re:
On the post: Fan Translator Likely Finds His Work In Official Game Release And Is Totally Cool With It
Re: Re: So says one admitted nut-burger. Translating isn't creative.
Then they go off on a rant about how their latest picture was only unsuccessful because of all the pirates- no, wait.
Next >>