Many homes today are equipped with “smart” devices, sometimes called “always on” devices. One such type of device will take orde
rs from an owner’s voice after a “wake” word. The wake word sets in motion a process for responding to the owner’s order and starting a recording, which is stored on a cloud computer. Suppose a crime took place in the home of a person with such a smart device. If police have a warrant to search the home, do they also have the right to seize the device and obtain information stored in the cloud that might help in solving the case? Tech companies and the Electronic Freedom Frontier say no. They argue that people have a reasonable expectation to privacy in their homes, and tech companies have refused to comply with the order to provide users’ personal information even under a warrant. To support its position, Amazon has quoted an opinion in a 2010 court case that was decided in its favor when the tech giant refused such compliance: “the fear of government tracking and censoring one’s reading, listening and viewing choices chills the exercise of First Amendment rights.” After reading the scenario, respond to A, B & C below.
A) Describe the constitutional principle at issue in this scenario.
B) In the context of the scenario, explain how the principle described in part A affects law enforcement.
C) In the context of the scenario, explain how the principle in part A demonstrates a tension between individual liberties (rights) and public safety.
This principle also guarantee the right to make an anonymous speech, thus making it lawful to do so.
B. However, giving persons right to maintain anonymity would make it unlawful for law enforcement to intrude peoples private conversation which they expect to be kept anonymously.
C. The question now is which is of greater importance? Is it public safety?, or allowing individual liberties even though it poses a threat to public safety?
