How do the particulars of this case have any relevance as to;
1) The implication of widespread proliferation of these types of recording devices
2) The accessibility/retention of the recordings for law enforcement
3) The long-standing legal framework around the third party doctrine and the NSA’s willingness to abuse third-party private data for data mining
It smacks of “think of the children!” to talk about what a bad guy they’re using the tech to help catch. Of course the early cases are sympathetic!
It’s not hard to see what’s coming when they put large blinking neon signs like this case up for us.
It just so happens that the company that makes these devices will be deriving a large portion of its profits in the coming decades from the same government which will very deeply want access to these records.
It also just so happens the company that makes these devices has already demonstrated how eager it is to hawk its panopticonic AI to that very same government for the purposes of mass surveillance.
Your original comment of "against the homeowner" reads to me as a similar appeal to emotion.
> The accessibility/retention of the recordings for law enforcement
The particulars here seem to be that they probably don't have recordings, and those recordings -- if they exist -- were only obtainable under court supervision. You muddled -- deliberately or accidentally -- both of these points in your post.
> the NSA
Who were mentioned precisely zero places in the original article.
> It’s not hard to see what’s coming when they put large blinking neon signs like this case up for us
Except you've created a gigantic strawman:
* Law abiding citizen
* Warrantless seizure
* Referring to these devices as recording devices, where that's a serious distortion of the functionality they offer, and it's entirely unclear if there are any saved audio files, anywhere
* Claiming that the NSA would refer to diverting recordings from this as non-collections
>How do the particulars of this case have any relevance as to...
Because the facts of this case are direct counter examples to all your points.
You claim no one is surprised Alexa is used in court against homeowners. Surprise Alexa (and video surviellence) are actually being used as a alibi for the homeowners innocence and potentially helping bring the murderer of the homeowners girlfriend and friend to justice.
You bring up warrantless searches. Again in this case no warrant would be needed because the homeowner would want to voluntarily waive their rights and turn over any and all recording that might help prove his innocence and bring the murderer to justice.
It’s strange you would question why I would bring up the facts of the case and call that a think about the children arguement. Whereas ignoring the facts to make arguements that are contradicted by the facts of this case is exactly that...a think about the children [privacy] arguement.
1) The implication of widespread proliferation of these types of recording devices
2) The accessibility/retention of the recordings for law enforcement
3) The long-standing legal framework around the third party doctrine and the NSA’s willingness to abuse third-party private data for data mining
It smacks of “think of the children!” to talk about what a bad guy they’re using the tech to help catch. Of course the early cases are sympathetic!
It’s not hard to see what’s coming when they put large blinking neon signs like this case up for us.
It just so happens that the company that makes these devices will be deriving a large portion of its profits in the coming decades from the same government which will very deeply want access to these records.
It also just so happens the company that makes these devices has already demonstrated how eager it is to hawk its panopticonic AI to that very same government for the purposes of mass surveillance.