Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 316 posts

Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

#11

Post by kwanbix »

chaps wrote: post #9
henryfjordan wrote: post #2

The judge doesn't really understand a hash well. They say things like "Google assigned a hash" which is not true, Google calculated the hash. Also I'm surprised the 3rd-party doctrine doesn't apply. There's the "private search doctrine" mentioned but generally you don't have an expectation of privacy for things you share with Google

Erm, "Assigned" in this context is not new: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/17... "More simply, a hash value is a string of characters obtained by processing the contents of a given computer file and assigning a sequence of numbers and letters that correspond to the file’s contents." From 2018 in United States v. Reddick .

The calculation is what assigns the value.

Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

#12

Post by uniformlyrandom »

> Google’s hash match may well have established probable cause for a warrant to allow police to conduct a visual examination of the Maher file.

Very reasonable. Google can flag accounts as CP, but then a judge still needs to issue a warrant for the police to actually go and look at the file. Good job court. Extra points for reasoning about hash values.

Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

#13

Post by [deleted] »

superkuh wrote: post #3

It's crazy that the most dangerous people one regularly encounters can do anything they want as long as they believe they can do it. The good faith exemption has to be one of the most fascist laws on the books today. > "the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule supports denial of Maher’s suppression motion because, at the time authorities opened his uploaded file, they had a good faith basis to believe that n…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

#15

Post by rmbyrro »

superkuh wrote: post #3

It's crazy that the most dangerous people one regularly encounters can do anything they want as long as they believe they can do it. The good faith exemption has to be one of the most fascist laws on the books today. > "the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule supports denial of Maher’s suppression motion because, at the time authorities opened his uploaded file, they had a good faith basis to believe that n…

I think the judge chose to relax a lot on this one due to the circumstances. Releasing a man in society found with 4,000 child porn photos in his computer would be a shame.

But yeah, this opens too wide gates of precedence for tyranny, unfortunately...

Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

#16

Post by LudwigNagasena »

superkuh wrote: post #3

It's crazy that the most dangerous people one regularly encounters can do anything they want as long as they believe they can do it. The good faith exemption has to be one of the most fascist laws on the books today. > "the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule supports denial of Maher’s suppression motion because, at the time authorities opened his uploaded file, they had a good faith basis to believe that n…

> you do anything you want and get away with it just as long as you say you thought you could.

Isn't that the motto of VC? Uber, AirBnB, WeWork, etc...

Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

#17

Post by uniformlyrandom »

henryfjordan wrote: post #2

The judge doesn't really understand a hash well. They say things like "Google assigned a hash" which is not true, Google calculated the hash. Also I'm surprised the 3rd-party doctrine doesn't apply. There's the "private search doctrine" mentioned but generally you don't have an expectation of privacy for things you share with Google

Hash can be arbitrary, the only requirement is it is a deterministic one-way function.

Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

#18

Post by shadowgovt »

rmbyrro wrote: post #8
MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #4

The Fourth Amendment didn't help here, unfortunately. Or, perhaps fortunately. Still, 25 years for possessing kiddie porn, damn.

The harshness of sentence is not for the action of keeping the photos in itself, but the individual suffering and social damage caused by the actions that he incentivizes when he consumes such content.

It's a reasonable argument, but a concerning one because it hinges on a couple of layers of indirection between the person engaging in consuming the content and the person doing the harm / person who is harmed.

That's not outside the purview of US law (especially in the world post-reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause), but it is perhaps worth observing how close to the cliff of "For the good of Society, you must behave optimally, Citizen" such reasoning treads.

For example: AI-generated CP (or hand-drawn illustrations) are viscerally repugnant, but does the same "individual suffering and social damage" reasoning apply to making them illegal? The FBI says yes to both in spite of the fact that we can name no human that was harmed or was unable to give consent in their fabrication (handwaving the source material for the AI, which if one chooses not to handwave it: drop that question on the floor and focus on under what reasoning we make hand-illustrated cartoons illegal to possess that couldn't be applied to pornography in general).

Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

#19

Post by ziml77 »

superkuh wrote: post #3

It's crazy that the most dangerous people one regularly encounters can do anything they want as long as they believe they can do it. The good faith exemption has to be one of the most fascist laws on the books today. > "the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule supports denial of Maher’s suppression motion because, at the time authorities opened his uploaded file, they had a good faith basis to believe that n…

Good Samaritan laws tend to function similarly

Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

#20

Post by yieldcrv »

superkuh wrote: post #3

It's crazy that the most dangerous people one regularly encounters can do anything they want as long as they believe they can do it. The good faith exemption has to be one of the most fascist laws on the books today. > "the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule supports denial of Maher’s suppression motion because, at the time authorities opened his uploaded file, they had a good faith basis to believe that n…

> In no other context or career can you do anything you want and get away with it just as long as you say you thought you could

Many white collar crimes, financial and securities fraud/violations can be thwarted this way

Basically, ignorance of the law is no excuse except when you specifically write the law to say it is an excuse

Something that contributes to the DOJ not really trying to bring convictions against individuals at bigger financial institutions

And yeah, a lot of people make sure to write their industry’s laws that way

Post reply on HN