By: Colin Nardone
In this modern technology age, do we really have a right to privacy? Practically everything we do, whether it is checking the weather, changing our thermostat, or using an internet connected home security system, is tracked by some company online. These companies compile these vast amounts of data, and often sell them to the highest bidder. Sometimes, even the police gain access to this data in order to solve crimes. Does the Constitution have any meaning in this kind of hyper-connected world?
The Fourth amendment provides “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but is there anything left to these words to provide that security for individuals, especially those most impoverished in our country? Within the last few decades, the Supreme Court has generally recognized a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment in specific contexts where technology is involved. But does this same right extend equally to all Americans including those who live in public housing across the United States?
Continue reading “Are All Americans Deserving of Equal Privacy Rights in the Age of the Internet of Things?”
By Rebecca Levin
On November 5, 2018, Judge Steven M. Houran of Strafford County, New Hampshire ordered Amazon to provide authorities with audio recordings from an Amazon Echo device in the investigation of the stabbing of two women in January 2017. Judge Houran wrote the Echo device may possess recordings that give insight into the murders given the device’s location in the home where the women were found. Currently, Amazon is objecting to the legality of this order and has yet to hand over the recordings, stating they will not release the information “without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us.” While this dispute is in the early stages; this clash over privacy rights between the government and Amazon is not the first of its kind.
On February 22, 2016, in Benton County, Arkansas, prosecutors charged James Bates with the murder of Victor Collins. After the Chief Medical Examiner ruled Collins’s death a murder, law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Bates’s home where they seized an Amazon Echo device under the assumption that through use of this device Amazon possessed audio recordings that could help solve the murder in question. Prosecutors surmised the Amazon Echo inadvertently recorded audio from the night of November 21, 2015 given the device played music on the night of the alleged murder and could have inadvertently recorded evidence of the murder. Ultimately, Amazon dropped their objection to releasing the recordings when James Bates voluntarily consented to their release on March 3, 2017. These cases highlight the question of what level of protection home smart devices receive under one’s right to privacy. This article will explore how the current laws protect smart home device users under the Fourth Amendment.
Continue reading ““Alexa, can you keep a secret?” An Analysis of 4th Amendment Protection Regarding Smart Home Devices”
By: Evisa Kambellari*
In the virtual world, one person can present himself in different identities and several persons can present themselves under the same virtual identity. Online impersonation can occur in two ways: either by stealing one’s personal information to gain access to his online profile or by creating a completely fake profile. The fake profile might reveal information that belongs to someone else or be totally fictitious. Such flexibility in assuming one’s identity online is due to the anonymity that people enjoy in the online world. Inability to elaborate proper identification tools of Internet users is one of the biggest challenges in preventing and prosecuting social media related crimes. Online social networking has reshaped human interaction in a way that reduces the barriers that would traditionally keep strangers apart. Identification requirements are minimal and there is no proper mechanism of verifying the truthfulness of the information one presents in creating an online profile or e-mail account. However, creating a fake online profile is not a criminal act per se. The component that turns the lawful act into an unlawful act of online impersonation is the imposter’s malicious intent to “defraud,” obtain a “benefit,” or “injure”.
Continue reading “ONLINE IMPERSONATION: I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE V. YOU CAN’T MANDATE HOW I USE MY PRIVACY TOOLBOX”