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

191–200 of 316 posts

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

#191

Post by ajsnigrutin »

anigbrowl wrote: post #163

Well let's look at how this actually played out. - Defendant was in fact sending CP through his gmail. - gmail correctly detects and flags it based on hash value - Google sends message to NCMEC based on hash value - NCMEC sends it to police based on hash value Now police are facing the obvious question, is this actually CP? They open the image, determine it is, then get a warrant to search his gmail account, and (lat…

> Recall that the standard for issuance of a warrant is 'probable cause', not 'mathematically proven cause'. Hash collisions are a possibility, but a sufficiently unlikely one that it doesn't matter. Probable cause means 'a fair probability' based on independent evidence of some kind - testimony, observation, forensic results or so. Even a shitty hash function that's only 90% reliable is going to meet that threshold. In the 10% of cases where the opened file turns out to be a random image with no pornographic content it's a 'no harm no foul' situation.

But do we actually know that? Do we know what the thresholds of "similarity" are in use by google and others, and how many false positives they trigger? Billions of photos are processed daily by googles services (google photo, chat programs, gmail, drive, etc.), and very few people actually send such stuff via gmail, so what if the reality is, that 99.9% of the matches are actually false positives? What about intentional matches, like someone intentionally creating some random SFW meme image, that (when hashed) matches with some illegal image hash, and that photo is then sent around intentionally.. should police really be checking all those emails, photos, etc., without warrants?

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

#192

Post by kyleee »

aiforecastthway wrote: post #132
bluGill wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is NOT a secure hash. This is an image similar to hash which has many many matches in not related images. Unfortunately the decision didn't mention this at all even though it is important. If it was even as good as a md5 hash (which is broken) I think the search should be allowed without warrant because even though a accidental collision is possible odds are so strongly against it that the courts can safely assu…

I wish I could get access to the "App'x 29" being referenced so that I could better understand the judges' understanding here. I assume this is Federal Appendix 29 (in which case a more thorough reference would've been appreciated). If the Appeals Court is going to cite the Federal Appendix in a decision like this and in this manner, then the Federal Appendix is as good as case law and West Publishing's copyright cla…

We can’t access appendix 29? Is that what you are saying?

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

#193

Post by Terr_ »

Detrytus wrote: post #180
fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #173

>please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. (@dang) On topic, I like this quote from the first page of the opinion: >A “hash” or “hash value” is “(usually) a short string of characters generated from a much larger string of data (say, an electronic image) using an algorithm—and calculated in a way that makes it highly unlikely another set of data will produce the same valu…

What's so weird about this? CS literature is not legally binding in any way. Of course a judge would rather quote a previous ruling by fellow judge than a textbook, Wikipedia, or similar sources.

I think the operative word was "amusing"--which it is--but even then there's a difference between:

1. That's weird and represents an operational error that breaks the rules.

2. That's weird and represents a potential deficiency in how the system or rules have been made.

I don't think anyone is suggesting #1, and #2 is a lot more defensible.

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

#194

Post by everforward »

refulgentis wrote: post #172
alphazard wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exactly. Bad people have to go free in order to incentivize good behavior by cops. You and I (as innocent people) are more likely to be affected by bad police behavior than the few bad people themselves and so we support the bad people going free.

I think its okay that we expect cops to be good _after_ the rule exists, rather than set the bad guys free to (checks notes) incentivize cops to take our new rule super seriously.

It would seem that the inverse would need to apply in order for the justice system to have any semblance of impartiality. That is that we now have to let both of them off the hook, since neither had been specifically informed they weren’t allowed to do the thing beforehand.

That is why many people think this should be tossed out. Ignorance that an action was a crime is almost never an acceptable defense, so it should not be an acceptable offense either.

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

#195

Post by BobaFloutist »

bluGill wrote: post #131
chaboud wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a deeply problematic way to operate. En masse, it has the right result, but, for the individual that will have their life turned upside down, the negative impact is effectively catastrophic. This ends up feeling a lot like gambling in a casino. The casino can afford to bet and lose much more than the individual.

I don't care nearly as much about the 4th amendment when the person is guilty. I care a lot when the person is innocent. Searches of innocent people is costly for the innocent person and so we require warrants to ensure such searches are minimized (even though most warrants are approved, the act of getting on forces the police to be careful). If a search was completely not costly to innocent I wouldn't be against the…

If the average person is illegally searched, but turns out to be innocent, what are the chances they bother to take the police to court? It's not like they're going to be jailed or convicted, so many people would prefer to just try to move on with their life rather than spend thousands of dollars litigating a case in the hopes of a payout that could easily be denied if the judge decides the cops were too stupid to understand the law rather than maliciously breaking it.

Because of that, precedent is largely going to be set with guilty parties, but will apply equally to violations of the rights of the innocent.

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

#196

Post by refulgentis »

banku_brougham wrote: post #175
refulgentis wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its okay that we expect cops to be good _after_ the rule exists, rather than set the bad guys free to (checks notes) incentivize cops to take our new rule super seriously.

That rule has been around for quite a while, and looks worse for wear now

> That rule has been around for quite a while

The rule established in this case is new, hence TFA, and all the time the lawyers and judge wasted on it :)

If I may suggest where wires are getting crossed:

You are sort of assuming it's like a logic gate: if 4th amendment violation, bad evidence, criminal must go free. So when you say "the rule", you mean "the 4th amendment", not the actual ruling.

That's not how it works, because that simple ultimatum also has edge cases. So we built up this whole system around nominating juries and judges, and paying lawyers, over centuries, to argue out complicated things like weighing intentionality.

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

#197

Post by Dylan16807 »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #125
ndriscoll wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By original do you mean the one in the database or the one on the device?

If the device spit out the same SHA3, then either it had the exact same image, or the SHA3 was planted somehow. The idea that it's actually a different file is not a reasonable doubt. It's too unlikely.

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

#198

Post by immibis »

ok_computer wrote: post #133
startupsfail wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until Trump is in power and corporations are masterfully using these tools to “mow the grass” (if you want an existing example of this, look at Putin’s Russia, where people get jail time for any pro-Ukraine mentions on social media).

Yeah I’m paranoid like I said, but this case it seems like the hash of a file on google’s remote storage flagged as potential match that was used as justification to request a warrant. That seems common sense and did not involve employees snooping pre-warrant. The Apple CSAM hash detection process, that the launch was rolled back, concerned me namely because it was run on-device with no opt out. If this is running on…

> You need to ensure you are not aiding or harboring actually harmful illegal material.

Is this actually true, legally speaking?

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

#199

Post by refulgentis »

everforward wrote: post #194
refulgentis wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its okay that we expect cops to be good _after_ the rule exists, rather than set the bad guys free to (checks notes) incentivize cops to take our new rule super seriously.

It would seem that the inverse would need to apply in order for the justice system to have any semblance of impartiality. That is that we now have to let both of them off the hook, since neither had been specifically informed they weren’t allowed to do the thing beforehand. That is why many people think this should be tossed out. Ignorance that an action was a crime is almost never an acceptable defense, so it should…

> we now have to let both of them off the hook, since neither had been specifically informed they weren’t allowed to do the thing beforehand.

I'm not trying to be funny, or aggressive, or passive aggressive, seriously: there's two entities in the discussion, the cops, and the person with a photograph with a hash matching child porn. I'm phrasing that as passively as possible because I want to avoid the tarpit of looking like I'm appealing to emotion:

Do you mean the hash-possessor weren't specifically informed it was illegal to possess said hash?

> It would seem that the inverse would need to apply in order for the justice system to have any semblance of impartiality...That is why many people think this should be tossed out.

Of course, I could be missing something here because I'm making a hash of parsing the first bit. But, no, if the cops in good faith make a mistake, there's centuries of jurisprudence behind not letting people go free for it, not novel with this case.

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

#200

Post by CGamesPlay »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #135
pdonis wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a judge still needs to issue a warrant for the police to actually go and look at the file Only in the future. Maher's conviction, based on the warrantless search, still stands because the court found that the "good faith exception" applies--the court affirmed the District Court's finding that the police officers who conducted the warrantless search had a good faith belief that no warrant was required for the search…

I wonder what happened to fruit of the poisoned tree? Seems a lot more liberty oriented than "good faith exception" when police don't think they need a warrant (because police never seem to "think" they need a warrant).

IANAL, but as I understood, this exception is specifically about cases where precedence is established. This same trick or others substantially like it won't work in the future, but because it was not a "known trick", the conviction still stands.
Post reply on HN