Earlier quoted context omitted.
The calculation is what assigns the value.
Yes, Google's calculation.
Did Google invent this hash?
Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]
121–130 of 316 posts
Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm trying to imagine a more "real-world" example of this to see how I feel about it. I dislike that there is yet another loophole to gain access to peoples' data for legal reasons, but this does feel like a reasonable approach and a valid goal to pursue. I guess it's like if someone noticed you had a case shaped exactly like a machine gun, told the police, and they went to check if it was registered or not? I suppos…
The main factual components are as follows: Party A has rented out property to Party B. Party A performs surveillance on or around the property with Party B's knowledge and consent. Party A discovers very high probability evidence that Party B is committing crimes within the property, and then informs the police of their findings. Police obtain a warrant, using Party A's statements as evidence. The closest "real worl…
> Party A discovers very high probability evidence that Party B is committing crimes within the property ...
This isn't accurate: the hashes were purposefully compared to a specific list. They didn't happen to notice it, they looked specifically for it.
And of course, what happens when it's a different list?
Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
The courts accept good faith arguments at times. They will give reduced sentences or even none at all if they think you acted in good faith. There are enough situations where it is legal to kill someone that there are laws to make it clear that is a legal situation where one person can kill another (hopefully they never apply to you). Note that this case is not about ignorance of the law. This is I knew the law and w…
The difference between "I don't know" and "I thought it worked like this" is purely a matter of degrees of ignorance. It sounds like the cops were ignorant of the law in the same way as someone who is completely unaware of it, just to a lesser degree. Unless they were misinformed about the origins of what they were looking at, it doesn't seem like it would be a matter of good faith, but purely negligence.
There was a circuit split and a matter of first impression in this circuit.
Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 enfor…
“Mens rea” is a key component of most crimes. Some crimes can only be committed if the perpetrator knows they are doing something wrong. For example, fraud or libel.
> “Mens rea” is a key component of most crimes. Some crimes can only be committed if the perpetrator knows they are doing something wrong. For example, fraud or libel.
We're talking about orthogonal issues.
Mens rea applies to whether the person performs the act on purpose. Not whether they were aware that the act was illegal.
Let's use fraud as an example since you brought it up.
If I bought an item from someone and used counterfeit money on purpose, that would be fraud. Even if I truly believed that doing so was legal. But it wouldn't be fraud if I didn't know that the money was counterfeit.
Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If the hash algorithm were CRC8, then obviously it should not be probable cause for anything. If it were SHA-3, then it's basically proof beyond reasonable doubt of what the file is. It seems reasonable to question how collisions behave.
I don't agree that it would be proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially because neither google nor law enforcement can produce the original image that got tagged.
Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]
#126> the private search doctrine, which authorizes a government actor to repeat a search already conducted by a private party without securing a warrant. IANAL, etc. Does that mean that if someone breaks in to your house in search of drugs, finds and steals some, and is caught by the police and confesses all that the police can then search your house without a warrant?
IANAL either, but from what I've read before the courts treat searches of your home with extra care under the 4th Amendment. At least one circuit has pushed back on applying private search cases to residences, and that was for a hotel room[0]:
> Unlike the package in Jacobsen, however, which "contained nothing but contraband," Allen's motel room was a temporary abode containing personal possessions. Allen had a legitimate and significant privacy interest in the contents of his motel room, and this privacy interest was not breached in its entirety merely because the motel manager viewed some of those contents. Jacobsen, which measured the scope of a private search of a mail package, the entire contents of which were obvious, is distinguishable on its facts; this Court is unwilling to extend the holding in Jacobsen to cases involving private searches of residences.
So under your hypothetical, I'd expect the police would be able to test "your drugs" that they confiscated from the thief, and use any findings to apply for a warrant for a search of your house, but any search without a warrant would be illegal.
Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]
#127Earlier 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.
No. The calculation is what determines what the assignation should be. It does not actually assign anything.
This FOIA litigation by ACLU v ICE goes into this topic quite a lot: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/2185910.htm...
Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Google's calculation.
Did Google invent this hash?
Why is that relevant? Google used a hashing function to persist a new record within a database. They created a record for this.
Like I said in a sib. comment, this FOIA lawsuit goes into questions of hashing pretty well: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/2185910.htm...
Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]
#129Re: Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any such thing as this surveillence applying to the inside of the renters bed room, bath room, filing cabinet with medical or financial documents, or political for that matter? I don't think there is, and I don't think you can reduce reality to being as simple as "owner has more right over property than renter" renter absolutely has at least a few rights in at least a few defined contextx over owner because…
> Is there any such thing as this surveillence applying to the inside of the renters bed room, bath room, filing cabinet with medical or financial documents, or political for that matter? Yes. Entering property for regular maintenance. Any time a landlord or his agent enters a piece of property, there is implicit surveillance. Some places are more formal about this than others, but anyone who has rented, owned rental…
> ...Google alerted the police to a hash match without actually looking at the image (ie, entering the bedroom).
Google cannot have calculated that hash without examining the data in the image. They, or systems under there control obviously looked at the image.
It should not legally matter whether the eyes are meat or machine... if anything, machine inspection should be MORE strictly regulated, because of how much easier and cheaper it tends to make surveillance (mass or otherwise).