Amazon seems to want to protect criminals who use Alexa ...

First link seems to be broken. Try techcrunch.com/2017/02/23/alexa-free-speech/

I doubt the computers or databases or recordings have any sincerely held religious beliefs that would prevent them from revealing the recorded information. This would be like saying the first amendment protects against the collection of physical evidence, because after all, that could possibly incriminate someone. We are talking about evidence and a device. If the police are otherwise empowered to collect evidence via a search warrant, then I see no reason that a device such as Alexa or the data related to same, would not fall into the same category as other bits of physical evidence.

What justification is there for this physical evidence to be treated differently from other types of physical evidence?

If there was a 911 call during a possible crime, would you say the first amendment prevents the recording of the 911 call from being used as evidence? If there were a tape recorder owned by the defendant that happened to have been going during the time in question, would you similarly claim that the first amendment protects the recorded audio from being used? If the audio recorder happened to be digital in nature, would it now be protected by the first amendment? And finally how is the Alexa different from a digital audio recorder insofar as it being evidence and subject to all the same rules as apply to other types of evidence?

Because ... "Computers!!!" .... is not a defense.  I see this as similar to the battle against software patents.  Just because it is stored in databases and on computers does not make this evidence any different from other types of evidence.  No matter how 'smart' Alexa is, it is NOT a person and not subject to first amendment protections.  If the first amendment can be twisted to prevent recordings of a persons voice from being used as evidence against them, then the first amendment can be further twisted to prevent the use of other types of evidence.  (Fingerprints, DNA, web-searches, emails, etc)

What other time have you heard of evidence being asked to be excluded because of the first amendment? Amazon wants this evidence to be excluded because of the first amendment. Amazon wants to refuse to comply with a request for this information based on some imagined first amendment right. To me that certainly seems like treating this evidence differently from other evidence. Please cite me a case where evidence was excluded because of the first amendment so we can see if it bears any resemblance to this case.

Bear in mind I'm not an American, so when you go on about "the first amendment" I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I could look it up ...

BUT. As I understand it, the police are NOT allowed to search your mobile phone, not allowed to search your house, not allowed to search a lot of stuff without a lot of legal palaver to get permission. And the police have pulled all sorts of stunts to avoid having to ask for permission - in short, they want to go on "fishing trips" is I believe the common term.

This thing sits in your house. This thing records a lot of your private conversations. This thing would be a policeman's wet dream of a fishing trip.

So I can understand Amazon wanting to have *extremely* clear guidelines - judicial ones at that - as to what is and is not acceptable.

You're very much coming over as "let the police rummage through everything, who cares", and there's an awful lot of people who care an awful lot. Americans as a whole seem to make a very big fuss over "due process". I care a hell of a lot about Justice. And the potential for abuse here is so fricking MASSIVE, I don't want an extremely damaging precedent rushed through with no thought as to the consequences.

Is the guy in jail? If it's not incrimating, why doesn't he give the police permission? If it is incriminating and he's in jail, then it doesn't matter how long it takes to go through the courts for them to get permission. If he's on bail, well, that's a *bit* different.

But if this case hands the police carte blanche for fishing trips through peoples' private conversations in their own homes, then I think a LOT of people (many of them innocent) will rue the day this was rushed through. The police aren't allowed to fish through phones. They aren't allowed to fish in private homes. Why should they be allowed to fish through private conversations people didn't even know were being recorded?

Don't forget - "knee jerk reactions make very bad law" - lots of Americans can't understand our gun ban. I agree, it's bad law, it was rushed through without thinking, and it was a kneejerk reaction to ?Dunblane and has done sweet FA to prevent a repeat!

I am not a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar.  But it seems to me that...

The purpose of search warrants is, broadly speaking, the suspension of rights for a specific individual or organization (and specificity is required) for the purposes of an on-going investigation by the authorities.  BECAUSE it is a suspension of vital rights the process is supposed to be highly specific, and based on cause that is to be established to the court's satisfaction.  Warrants (in an ideal world...) aren't issued lightly.

It DOES seem that a warrant is in place here, as nsomos' second link reads (in part)

Since a warrant has been issued it would seem to me that the First Amendment doesn't apply, unless something is wrong with the warrant itself.  It's been suspended by the court for purposes of this investigation.  Amazon's argument doesn't seem to be that there's something wrong with the warrant.

Amazon's stated objection on First Amendment grounds - to me, at least - doesn't hold water if a valid warrant is in place.  My bet would be that Amazon sees a threat to their Alexa/Echo business model, and is trying to head it off by re-framing the argument as a First Amendment issue.  If that's the case, I'd expect Amazon to be slapped down, hard (as they should be, in that event).

I'll be watching with some interest for where this goes.

Wol, that is exactly spot on, or more to the point (Amazon's more likely actual concern) is that people will not buy an Alexa if that now means that every conversation that occurs around it is considered admissible evidence. It is part of the reason I have turned of Siri on my cell phone, refuse to purchase anything like an Alexa, etc.

It is not that I ever plan on committing a crime, but I believe in privacy. I may make some off-the-cuff comment to somebody (or to myself) some day that could be construed by an overzealous prosecutor or police officer to mean something totally different than what I meant, and simply is none of the public's business. Having been on an American jury, I have watched a prosecutor attempt to twist the words of a defendant to mean something totally different than what he said. I also wait for the day that the Alexa database is attacked, and all of the personal information is compromised and sent across the web.

Just thought up another quick point about that search warrant - due process!

The warrant suspends AMAZON'S rights, because it's against Amazon. But it violates Amaon's CUSTOMER'S rights. So due process demands that he has an input, because it's his rights that are being violated.

Reminds me of a case mentioned on Groklaw, where a bankruptcy judge sold a lot of copyrights. Except what he sold was NOT what the author had sold to the bankrupt. And the Judge's deal was very damaging to the author - the judge gave the author a share of net profits (ie effectively nothing), while the author's contract gave him a share of gross proceeds, ie a guaranteed income.

And the author was denied any opportunity to make his case, by the judge. Dunno whether he did, but to me that's a clear constitutional violation about the state seizing property.

Due process says the accused MUST have a say, because it's HIS rights that are being violated. That is probably Amazon's point.

Cheers,
Wol