Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by gtirloni | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

gtirloni

> after the defendant consented

View on HN

But how long before lack of consent is considered incriminating?

There are also many different jurisdictions which don't have 5th amendment style protections.

Wouldn't a jurisdiction without 5th amendment protections be unconstitutional?

We do not all live in the USA.

This case does though and considering its a 5th amendment case I'm not sure how it would be relevant internationally.

The basis premises (privacy amidst a sea of devices which record at various times and save these recordings off-site) are universal.

Most jurisdictions have similar provisions. If not, the defendant is screwed anyway.

Depends on the constitution.

It will be a long time in the jurisdiction of this case before constitutional protection against self-incrimination is stripped.

That protection has mostly gotten stronger over the past 200+ years, so I think you're probably right.

In the UK, we have the right to remain silent when questioned by a police officer. But in 1994, the wording was changed to include: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

Feels a bit weird. Why does a defendant consenting change anything? Presumably if they were asleep as claimed, they're basically consenting to something that's unrelated to themselves.

Even if they were sound asleep; what Echo recorded may be incredibly damning - a muffled voice, screams, no evidence of someone sleeping nor of an intruder, yet enough to pull a Jury's emotions that a conviction is needed and the death penalty is merited.

Yes, this sounds like agreeing to a police interview without your lawyer present -- there's almost no chance that it will help you (are they going to hear "Alexa, tell this person who is not James to stop murdering me"?) and basically any audio they hear that's not someone else confessing to the crime can be used against him in court.

That was my first thought. Why should the defendant have a say in what evidence can be collected? Did the Feds ask if they could take DNA samples from the scene, for example?

You could allow the police to do that without a warrant, if you wanted to. Amazon doesn't need to argue whether the prosecution have a legitimate order to seize the data if the 'owner' is willing to turn it over.

In this case, the defendant may have a say only because Amazon is claiming there is standing to enforce the defendant's First Amendment rights - the so-called chilling effect.

With the defendant consenting, Amazon's standing for litigating this issue becomes more fraught.

In this case it is because Amazon resisted the request from the legal system for the data.

The owner of the device giving consent to Amazon to release the data avoids having to play out the legal process of obtaining the data (it's likely the request would eventually have succeeded).

Why did the defendant's lawyer allow this? I don't understand how this could possibly help the defense.

Well at least one explanation is that the defendant is actually innocent, and thus isn't worried it will be incriminating.

Another explanation is the defense is sufficiently convinced that nothing conclusive will be found anyways, and think that acting as if they have nothing to hide will make them look more innocent.

Most likely Amazo Alan already allowed the defendant to review the data and they've found nothing useful.

The power difference between the state and an individual invalidates any consent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com