nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 2, 2017 18:22:40 GMT
And just what part does the first amendment play in this? The point I have tried to make is that I think it not appropriate for Amazon to bring up the first amendment as the reason for their refusal to comply. I am not claiming that this evidence should be admissible or should not be.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 150
|
Authored by swmech on Mar 2, 2017 20:27:24 GMT
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. An excellent point. But do we know enough about the warrant to say that it's not made out against the accused? If it's against the accused then I would expect Amazon to make the subpoenaed information available, according to the terms of the warrant. And I can't imagine that the Echo EULA doesn't advise end users that Amazon will comply with legal requests (although I can't check that, I'm definitely not an Echo user...). |
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 2, 2017 20:57:10 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 2, 2017 21:18:06 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 2, 2017 21:47:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 3, 2017 10:02:51 GMT
The Miranda warning is probably copied from the British because you might have had a similar case. It didn't exist at independence - it came into being in the Victorian era.
We recently dropped the second half of the traditional warning, and there was a massive outcry which I found pretty awful, given that I knew the historical context.
It used to be "You have the right to remain silent AND THIS FACT CANNOT BE USED AGAINST YOU TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS". In the historical context, this made sense - if a prosecutor twisted your words you had no right of reply, therefore even if you were innocent it was safer to keep schtumm. Now that the accused does have the right of reply, it's perfectly reasonable to use the silence to draw conclusions - and I feel the people objecting to the change were simply saying "no change is the best change", rather than actually having any serious interest in justice, or why the right was introduced in the first place.
Cheers,
Wol
|
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 3, 2017 10:07:20 GMT
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. An excellent point. But do we know enough about the warrant to say that it's not made out against the accused? If it's against the accused then I would expect Amazon to make the subpoenaed information available, according to the terms of the warrant. And I can't imagine that the Echo EULA doesn't advise end users that Amazon will comply with legal requests (although I can't check that, I'm definitely not an Echo user...). But that means either (a) they can't comply without the accused's permission, or (b) they are fighting it upon request by the accused, who has invoked his first amendment rights. Cheers, Wol |
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 3, 2017 15:38:15 GMT
Or you could just read Amazons 16 page motion asking to quash that I posted above.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 3, 2017 21:15:05 GMT
Here is another article which makes the point that Amazon isn't actually fighting for the little guy ... AMAZON ISN’T FIGHTING FOR YOUAnd another thing that occurs to me ... How about the first amendment rights of the deceased (possibly murdered) individual. The last things they said (which might incriminate the Echo owner) may be recorded. Without at least a judge listening to it (and possibly some audio analysis expert witnesses), we may never know. By refusing to comply with a properly issued search warrant, Amazon could be depriving the deceased of THEIR first amendment rights. Considering that the deceased has no recourse at this point, I would say protecting their first amendment rights takes precedence over protecting any real or imagined first amendment rights of those not deceased. |
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 4, 2017 10:23:21 GMT
nsomos - in THIS PARTICULAR CASE - I pretty much agree with you.
But the precedent could be extremely damaging. To innocent people. Do you really want a precedent - set by trampling over the rights of a probably guilty person - to be used to trample over the rights of hundreds of innocent people?
Cheers,
Wol
|
|
|
Bubba
Guest
|
Authored by Bubba on Mar 6, 2017 19:52:27 GMT
Wol, I agree with your statement. This is a further complication of Blackstone's formulation.
|
|
