|
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited
MuninsFire
Member since Mar-27-07
457 posts |
Feb-23-17, 04:22 PM (EDT) |
|
"Turing III precedents"
|
Honestly, I don't know WHAT to call this, but apparently Amazon is in court arguing that Alexa - their "AI" assistant - has, at least, a first amendment interest in avoiding incriminating others. https://news.vice.com/story/amazon-says-alexa-has-first-amendment-right-to-resist-giving-up-data-in-murder-case So it looks like we might start getting some precedent over whether AI processes have rights, and what kind of rights they might be entitled to. I have no illusions that AZW has the least concern for privacy, mind, nor are they likely to have the intent of 'AI rights' in mind - my suspicion is that they saw the kind of thing that happened with Apple's interactions with the DOJ and decided they wanted none of that - but using a bill of rights argument to quash the interrogation is an interesting wrinkle. In Xanadu did Kubla Khan A stately pleasure-dome decree Where Alph, the sacred river, ran Through caverns measureless to man Down to a sunless sea |
|
|
Printer-friendly page | Top |
|
|
Pasha
Charter Member
1018 posts |
Feb-23-17, 06:09 PM (EDT) |
|
1. "RE: Turing III precedents"
In response to message #0
|
>Honestly, I don't know WHAT to call this, but apparently Amazon is in >court arguing that Alexa - their "AI" assistant - has, at least, a >first amendment interest in avoiding incriminating others. > >https://news.vice.com/story/amazon-says-alexa-has-first-amendment-right-to-resist-giving-up-data-in-murder-case > >So it looks like we might start getting some precedent over whether AI >processes have rights, and what kind of rights they might be entitled >to. No, they're arguing that AMZN's *customers* have a First Amendment (odd that it's not fifth, but) right to avoid the government knowing what they're reading and listening to.
Specifically "rather seeks to protect the privacy rights of its customers when the government is seeking their data from Amazon, especially when that data may include expressive content protected by the First Amendment." -- -Pasha "Don't change the subject" "Too slow, already did." |
|
|
Printer-friendly page | Top |
|
|
|
|
|
Gryphon
Charter Member
22420 posts |
Mar-01-17, 12:49 PM (EDT) |
|
3. "RE: Turing III precedents"
In response to message #2
|
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-17 AT 12:53 PM (EST) >Not a lawyer, but I think Fifth amendment is you have the right to not >say anything. So if you say something, you automatically waive the >fifth amendment. The phrase "remain silent" does not itself appear in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (operative bit for our purposes emphasized) That doesn't mean you literally have to say nothing at all or else be compelled to say everything. It serves prosecutorial purposes to let people believe that, but it isn't the case. In fact, thanks to one of the Supreme Court's more egregious recent decisions (Salinas v. Texas, 2013), you have to specifically tell the cops you're not going to answer their questions because the Constitution says you don't have to; just sitting there not answering is, by some bizarre conservative logic, now a tacit admission that the answer to the unanswered question is the one the police want. In this instance, I think it's being cast as a First Amendment matter because the reading/watching material in question is itself protected by that amendment—that is, since whatever you were watching/reading was constitutionally protected, it's no one's business exactly what it was. --G. -><- Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/ zgryphon at that email service Google has Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. |
|
|
Printer-friendly page | Top |
|
|
|
|
Star Ranger4
Charter Member
2483 posts |
Mar-02-17, 00:42 AM (EDT) |
|
4. "RE: Turing III precedents"
In response to message #3
|
>In this instance, I think it's being cast as a First Amendment matter >because the reading/watching material in question is itself protected >by that amendment—that is, since whatever you were >watching/reading was constitutionally protected, it's no one's >business exactly what it was. The more I think about this, the more I want to argue that it should be covered under the fifth, not the first. Its not about freedom of expression, really. In this case, what it seems like to me is that they would like to use the search metadata to, in fact, incriminate the person who asked for the data. So, to me the question really is where the line is drawn, and as i get older I find myself... To be honest I dont know where I find myself on the issue except that it seems to me that its not about freedom of speech and expression, but about what the authorities can and cannot use as evidence of a crime. And that, plus the implied right not to incriminate oneself; fall squarely under the fifth, not the first Of COURSE you wernt expecting it! No One expects the FANNISH INQUISITION! RCW# 86 |
|
|
Printer-friendly page | Top |
|
|
|
|
Gryphon
Charter Member
22420 posts |
Mar-02-17, 01:00 AM (EDT) |
|
5. "RE: Turing III precedents"
In response to message #4
|
>it seems to me that its not about freedom of speech and expression, >but about what the authorities can and cannot use as evidence of a >crime. And that, plus the implied right not to incriminate oneself; >fall squarely under the fifth, not the first Sure, but when you're an attorney arguing this stuff in court, it's usually not really about what it's about, it's about what you think you can sell to the court. --G. -><- Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/ zgryphon at that email service Google has Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. |
|
|
Printer-friendly page | Top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pasha
Charter Member
1018 posts |
Mar-06-17, 05:42 PM (EDT) |
|
7. "RE: Turing III precedents"
In response to message #6
|
>Sadly, that is not only true, but highlights some of the problems with >the jurisprudence process. For all its warts, though, ever other >option is worse. Let's also remember that we're (I'm pretty sure?) not actually lawyers here AND none of us have access to the probably reams of research done before figuring out what to argue the theory of the case under. Still, it's not about the rights of AI, even a little bit, no matter what headline writers want to write. -- -Pasha "Don't change the subject" "Too slow, already did." |
|
|
Printer-friendly page | Top |
|
|
|
version 3.3 © 2001
Eyrie Productions,
Unlimited
Benjamin
D. Hutchins
E P U (Colour)
|