This week, I reviewed the article ‘Prosecutor, Police Disagree on Evidence After Judge Tosses Amazon Echo Case’ by Michelle Taylor published in Forensics Magazine. The article updates upon a homicide case last year in which the police wanted to use an ‘Amazon Alexa’ as a witness. In November 2016, four friends in Arkansas hung out at Victor Collins’ house in his hot tub with beers and vodka, but the next morning Collins was found face down in the hot tub. After trace evidence found a violent struggle took place, police wanted to consult his Alexa, who was being used as a speaker. Amazon wasn't so willing though, as they pleaded for first amendment protections. This was changed after defense attorneys consented and Amazon gave the information to the court. The fight might not have been worth it because two days ago they found that the police department “did not find any evidence from the Echo device.”
This was a very interesting article to read, specifically because I have an Amazon Alexa at my house. Previously I heard of a domestic violence case where the woman called the police using her Alexa. This crime was different, however, because the police wanted the data from the device. I think it's very important that we use technology to our advantage, especially with forensic related cases. This case set the precedent when using digital assistants for the case But, it’s important for people to have their privacy. Already, people are comparing Alexa to the spying telescreens from the dystopian novel 1984. Personally, I think that we should try to make a law so that when it comes to using the Alexa in conjunction with government or police, the person has rights over the ‘robot.’
This article was very well written, but there were some problems I had with it. The article that I used was very short because it was more of an update on the case. I felt that the author could have added background information, so a new reader doesn't have to go looking for the original article. Finally, I felt the article to be very unclear with the speakers. When dialogue was brought up only one quote was used, and all other dialogue was just shortened or summarise. This confused me as I was reading. However, none of this majorly impacted what I learned from the article.
Taylor, Michelle. “Prosecutor, Police Disagree on Evidence After Judge Tosses Amazon Echo Case.” Forensic Magazine, Advantage Business Media, 5 Dec. 2017, www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/12/prosecutor-police-disagree-evidence-after-judge-tosses-amazon-echo-case.
6 comments:
I thought Ryan did a very good job summarizing the case, and he made a good connection to real life. Because technology like this is common in most people’s lives, it’s good to know where it stands in regards to legal matters. It was also cool how he mentioned 1984 because some of my classmates have read that in English class. I thought his critique also made some good points and wasn’t too lenient with the author.
Something I think Ryan could have done better was use quotes from the article (although based on his critique there didn’t seem to be many to use). Other than that I think he did a good job.
I was surprised that people even considered that an Alexa would be able to act as a witness, because although it can understand speech in order to carry out commands, it shouldn’t be able to observe the events happening around it, and if it can that’s very creepy. Unless someone specifically gave it a command to respond to an emergency, it’s unlikely that it can provide any evidence.
Isabella Dibbini
Mr. Ippolito
Current Events
13 December 2017
Taylor, Michelle. “Prosecutor, Police Disagree on Evidence After Judge Tosses Amazon Echo Case.” Forensic Magazine, Advantage Business Media, 5 Dec. 2017. www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/12/prosecutor-police-disagree-evidence-after-judge-tosses-amazon-echo-case
Ryan wrote an great review of the article “Prosecutor, Police Disagree on Evidence After Judge Tosses Amazon Echo Case” by Michelle Taylor published in Forensics Magazine. Ryan developed an accurate summary of this article. In addition, he incorporated a quote into his review to support his claims. For instance, he states “did not find any evidence from the Echo device” when discussing what was found at the police department. Also, I was impressed by the connections Ryan made between the article and its effect on society. He brought up an interesting point; he states “This was a very interesting article to read, specifically because I have an Amazon Alexa at my house.” This is interesting because many houses do have this Amazon product.
Ryan wrote a very good review on this article, however, they are a few things in which he could improve. To start with, I wish Ryan included more quotes from his article. Also, if Ryan wanted to take his review to the next level, he could include outside research, about this product, which would also make his review more interesting.
By reading this article I expanded my knowledge because I was unaware of what the Amazon Echo could do. Overall, Ryan’s review is very good and shows a great understanding of this article.
Scott McGrath
12/14/17
Current Event 11
Taylor, Michelle. “Prosecutor, Police Disagree on Evidence After Judge Tosses Amazon Echo Case.” Forensic Magazine, Advantage Business Media, 5 Dec. 2017, www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/12/prosecutor-police-disagree-evidence-after-judge-tosses-amazon-echo-case.
This article review titled “Prosecutor, Police Disagree on Evidence After Judge Tosses Amazon Echo Case” by Ryan Staunton was very well done. The article talks about how an Amazon Alexa was used as a witness in a homicide case. Four friends were drinking in a hot tub, when the next day one of the friends was found face down in the tub, dead. A violent struggle was determined. An Amazon Alexa was used as a speaker, and the Police thought that they could use it to find evidence of the crime through the fact it is always listening. In the end, the police eventually got the go ahead to search it through Amazon, and evidence was not found through the speaker.
One thing I think Ryan did very well was the pacing of the article. He presented a summary and his thoughts very coherently. Another thing I think he did very well was implement his opinions very strongly. He brought up a personal aspect to this case, saying he owned an Alexa as well and how it was scary that this can happen. One last thing he did very strongly was explain the case in a very simple way that was both easy to understand, but providing enough information to confidently take a stance on the topic.
Despite all these positives, there were a few negatives. I would have liked to see some quotes, which would have made it easier to understand without having to look at the actual article itself. Another thing that could have been improved upon was the length. It seemed very short and would have liked to see more about the case.
One thing that blew my mind was that an Amazon Alexa was used as a witness in a murder. This is mindblowing because I also have an Alexa and it is shocking to see that a piece of technology was used as a witness in a crime. Overall, I thought this review was very well written.
Taylor, Michelle. “Prosecutor, Police Disagree on Evidence After Judge Tosses Amazon Echo
Case.” Forensic Magazine, Advantage Business Media, 5 Dec. 2017.
www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/12/prosecutor-police-disagree-evidence-after-judge-tosses-amazon-echo-case
Ryan wrote an excellent response to the article “Prosecutor, Police Disagree on Evidence After Judge Tosses Amazon Echo Case” by Michelle Taylor. He begins with a succinct and informative summary that provides the reader with all of the necessary information. He is able to effectively and efficiently describe the details of the case and the controversy that surrounded the Alexa evidence. I loved how Ryan connected the article to a previous case that dealt with Alexa and a domestic violence 911 call because it proved just how important evidence from robots like Alexa can be. I also totally agree with him that the Taylor did not cite her sources and quotes properly which made it very difficult or impossible to understand who she was referencing when she included a quote.
Although Ryan wrote a thorough and well-written current event report, there are two areas that he could improve upon. Since the article was about the judge throwing away the case, I think that Ryan could have included some information that would have shed some light on the reason that the case was not prosecuted. I also think that Ryan could have included a quote from a credible expert or someone who involved in the case in order to bring a real-life perspective to his work.
After reading Ryan’s response, I have now learned about a fairly recent murder case that potentially could have been solved using a piece of modern technology. I think that the debate surrounding whether companies like Amazon should yield to the courts or protect their customers’ privacy is important and I’m sure that it will become a more frequent issue in the future.
Kelsey Ravesloot
Taylor, Michelle. “Prosecutor, Police Disagree on Evidence After Judge Tosses Amazon Echo Case.” Forensic Magazine, Advantage Business Media, 5 Dec. 2017, www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/12/prosecutor-police-disagree-evidence-after-judge-tosses-amazon-echo-case.
Ryan wrote a review on the article, “Prosecutor, Police Disagree on Evidence After Judge Tosses Amazon Echo Case” by Michelle Taylor. This article was published in the Forensics Magazine. I thought this article was very well written. I liked how he connected the article with society and explained how this affects our society. I also think Ryan gave a good background of the article before going into what it was about.
One thing I think he could have done better was including more quotes from the article into the review to pull in more facts. But other than that I think he did a very good job.
I couldn’t find many major errors in Ryan’s review, it was not only well written but also interesting to read. One thing that caught my attention was how Amazon was not willing to help the case at first, which is pretty bad for such a known/big company.
Post a Comment