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

31–40 of 316 posts

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

#31

Post by nordsieck »

vlovich123 wrote: post #5

> As the district court correctly ruled in the alternative, 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 no warrant was required So this means this conviction is upheld but future convictions may be overturned if they similarly don't acquire a warrant?

> 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 no warrant was required

This "good faith exception" is so absurd I struggle to believe that it's real.

Ordinary citizens are expected to understand and scrupulously abide by all of the law, but it's enough for law enforcement to believe that what they're doing is legal even if it isn't?

What that is is a punch line from a Chapelle bit[1], not a reasonable part of the justice system.

---

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WlmScgbdws

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

#32

Post by duxup »

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

Google at some point decided how to calculate that hash and that influences what the value is right? Assigned seems appropriate in that context?

Either way I think the judge's wording makes sense.

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

#33

Post by [deleted] »

curiousllama wrote: post #6
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

Out of curiosity, what is false positive rate of a hash match? If the FPR is comparable to asking a human "are these the same image?", then it would seem to be equivalent to a visual search. I wonder if (or why) human verification is actually necessary here.

[deleted]

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

#34

Post by naet »

It seems like a large part of the ruling hinges on the fact that Google matched the image hash to a hash of a known child pornography image, but didn't require an employee to actually look at that image before reporting it to the police. If they had visually confirmed it was the image they suspected it was based on the hash then no warrant would have been required, but the judge reads that the image hash match is not equivalent to a visual confirmation of the image. Maybe there's some slight doubt in whether or not the image could be a hash collision, which depends on the hash method. It may be incredibly unlikely (near impossible?) for any hash collision depending on the specific hash strategy.

I think it would obviously be less than ideal for Google to require an employee visually inspect child pornography identified by image hash before informing a legal authority like the police. So it seems more likely that the remedy to this situation would be for the police to obtain a warrant after getting the tip but before requesting the raw data from Google.

Would the image hash match qualify as probable cause enough for a warrant? On page 4 the judge stops short of setting precedence on whether it would have or not. Seems likely that it would be a solid probable cause to me, but sometimes judges or courts have a unique interpretation of technology that I don't always share, and leaving it open to individual interpretation can lead to conflicting results.

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

#35

Post by superkuh »

mcosta wrote: post #29
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…

It is not "you say you thought you could", it is "you have reasonable evidence a crime is happening". The reasonable here is "google said it", and it was true. If the police arrive at a house on a domestic abuse call, and hears screams for help, is breaking down the door done in good faith?

In this case you're correct. But the good faith exemption is far broader than this and applies to even officer's completely personal false beliefs in their authority.

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

#36

Post by [deleted] »

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 .

[deleted]

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

#37

Post by [deleted] »

kwanbix wrote: post #11
chaps wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#38

Post by superkuh »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #16
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...

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I thought the context provided it.

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

And as for corporations: that's the point of incorporating. Reducing liability.

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

#39

Post by cool_dude85 »

gorjusborg wrote: post #24
curiousllama wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, what is false positive rate of a hash match? If the FPR is comparable to asking a human "are these the same image?", then it would seem to be equivalent to a visual search. I wonder if (or why) human verification is actually necessary here.

> Out of curiosity, what is false positive rate of a hash match? No way to know without knowledge of the 'proprietary hashing technology'. Theoretically though, a hash can have infinitely many inputs that produce the same output. Mismatching hash values from the same hashing algorithm can prove mismatching inputs, but matching hash values don't ensure matching inputs. > I wonder if (or why) human verification is actu…

I'd say the focus on hashing is a bit of a red herring.

Most anyone would agree that the hash matching should probably form probable cause for a warrant, allowing a judge to sign off on the police searching (i.e., viewing) the image. So, if it's a collision, the cops get a warrant and open up your linux ISO or cat meme, and it's all good. Probably the ideal case is that they get a warrant to search the specific image, and are only able to obtain a warrant to search your home and effects, etc. if the image does appear to be CSAM.

At issue here is the fact that no such warrant was obtained.

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

#40

Post by bloopernova »

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.

Respectfully, it's not pornography, it's child sexual abuse material.

Porn of/between consenting adults is fine. CSAM and sexual abuse of minors is not pornography.

EDIT: I intended to reply to the grandparent comment

Post reply on HN