This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S22-Policy-Stoa-24-NEG-ThirdPartyDoctrine.docx |
File Size | 101.29 KB |
Date added | November 8, 2021 |
Category | Policy (Stoa) |
Author | Josiah Hemp |
Resolved: The United States federal government substantially reform the use of Artificial Intelligence technology
Case Summary: The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution requires law enforcement to obtain search warrants before conducting any unreasonable search and seizure of our homes, papers and effects. Technological changes over the years have required the Supreme Court to make judgments about how and when to apply this constitutional privacy protection over varying circumstances never contemplated by the Founders in the 1790’s.
Warrantless telephone wiretapping, for example, was allowed by a Supreme Court case in the 1920’s. But it was overturned by a later Court decision in the 1960’s (the Katz decision) , where the Court ruled that a citizen’s expectation of privacy was a large factor in determining the need for a search warrant, and that warrants would be required for government eavesdropping on phone calls.
Another factor is the “Third Party Doctrine.” The Supreme Court has ruled that, in general (with some new exceptions recently made), any information you voluntarily disclose to a “third party” (not yourself and not the government) is fair game for the government to collect without a warrant. Examples include your bank account records, phone company records of numbers you have called – anything that, even though you might think it’s private, is already in someone else’s possession (the bank, the phone company).
Another example of “3rd party” records are recordings made by Google or Amazon of voice data collected by Siri, Alexa or other AI personal assistants in people’s homes. The Affirmative Plan removes recordings captured by smart devices from the Third-Party Doctrine. Post-plan, an individual’s consent to a third party (like Apple or Google or Amazon) will not be grounds for the government to search. Instead, the government must follow the 4th Amendment and obtain consent directly from the individual or else obtain a search warrant.
Negative Strategy:
There are few people arguing against this case in articles or papers. However, the Supreme Court, as well as lower courts, have routinely defended the Third-Party Doctrine since it was created. Thus, this brief heavily draws on the reasoning of the courts. Instead, we are talking about whether the plan is consistent with the Constitution and what impacts it would have on constitutional law, and resulting interpretations of the Constitution itself, which impacts our freedoms. This case could have unintended consequences that backfire and reduce freedom in the long run.