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

221–230 of 316 posts

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

#221

Post by rangestransform »

TZubiri wrote: post #209
rangestransform wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Constitutional rights did not win enough, it should be that violating constitutional rights means the accused goes free, period, end of story

You forgot your IANAL, but thankfully it's obvious. That's a ridiculous desire. In that world, if I delete your comment, and you kill me in retaliation, you should be let free if you argue that my deleting your comment infringed your right to free speech?

What I mean specifically is that because the police saw illegally obtained evidence, all evidence collected afterward after that point should be considered fruit of the poisoned tree and inadmissible

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

#222

Post by freejazz »

everforward wrote: post #214
refulgentis wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 look…

> Do you mean the hash-possessor weren't specifically informed it was illegal to possess said hash? This is literally the doctrine behind the good faith argument and qualified immunity. If they have not been informed that this specific act, done in this specific way is not allowed then it is largely permissible. A stupid but equivalent defense from the possessor would be “it’s in Googles possession, not mine, so I ha…

Your argument is a bit disingenuous because it's not applicable in situation where there is clear law clarifying that something can't be done.

You're pretending that cops are using this in situations where it's known that a warrant is needed, as opposed to it being an exception to "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine when new caselaw is being made.

> Acting in good faith would be getting a warrant regardless

That's not what "good faith" means, that's just something entirely made up by you. From a reasonable perspective that could be described as foolish and a waste of time and the public's resources.

> It encourages the police to push the boundaries of legal behavior, because they still get to keep the evidence even if they are wrong and have committed an illegal search.

There's a constant tension between technology, crime and the police that's reflected in the history of 4th amendment jurisprudence and it's not at all like what you describe. The criminals are pushing the boundaries to which the police must catch up, and the law must determine what is fair as society changes over time. I'm not particularly pro cop, but you don't seem to be reasonable about any of this.

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

#223

Post by freejazz »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #101
aiforecastthway wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Wait until you hear about third party doctrine.

I have this weird experience where people that get all their legal news from tech websites have really pointed views about fourth amendment jurisprudence and patent law.

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

#224

Post by [deleted] »

aiforecastthway wrote: post #190
ok_computer wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he wasn’t running a computer in a rented space, he was using storage space on google’s computers. In an older comment I argued against analogies to rationalize this. I think honestly at face value it is possible to evaluate the goodness or badness of the decision.

> In an older comment I argued against analogies to rationalize this. I think honestly at face value it is possible to evaluate the goodness or badness of the decision. I generally do agree that analogies became anti-useful in this thread relatively quickly. However, I am not sure that avoiding analogies is actually possible for the courts. I mean, they can try, but at some point analogies are unavailable because mos…

[deleted]

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

#225

Post by freejazz »

nashashmi wrote: post #147
kulahan wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent example, I think I get it now and I'm fully on-board. Thanks. I could easily see an AirBNB owner calling the cops if they saw, for instance, child abuse happening on their property.

Ok. But that would also be invasion of privacy. If the property you rented out was being used for trafficking and you don’t want to be involved with trafficking, then the terms would have to first explicitly set what is not allowed. Then it would also have to explicitly mention what measures are taken to enforce it and what punishments are imposed for violations. It should also mention steps that are taken for compli…

>Without full documentation of compliance measures, enforcement measures, and punishments imposed, violations of the rule cannot involve law enforcement who are restricted to acting on searches with warrants.

That's not the only way police get information...

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

#226

Post by freejazz »

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…

>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 claims should be ripped away. Either the Federal Appendix should not be cited in Appeals Court and Supreme Court opinions, or the Federal Appenix is part of the law and belongs to the people. There is no middle there.

Just go to a law library.

Do you know that judges routinely make decisions based on confidential documents not in the public record? Is that also bad?

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

#227

Post by nullc »

bluGill wrote: post #213
wonnage wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the exact conclusion that was reached - the search required a warrant.

the court implied even a hash without collisions would not count when it should.

It shouldn't. Google hasn't otherwise seen the image, so the employee couldn't have witnessed a crime. There are reportedly many perfectly legal images that end up in these almost perfectly unaccountable databases.

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

#228

Post by elcritch »

zahlman wrote: post #165
crooked-v wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hashes involved in stuff like this, as with copyright auto-matching, are perceptual hashes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_hashing ), not cryptographic hashes. False matches are common enough that perceptual hashing attacks are already a thing in use to manipulate search engine results (see the example in random paper on the subject https://gangw.cs.illinois.edu/PHashing.pdf ).

This submission is the first I've heard of the concept. Are there OSS implementations available? Could I use this, say, to deduplicate resized or re-jpg-compressed images?

Probably yeah, though there’s significant overlap between how much distortion to accept vs the number of false positives.

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

#229

Post by _Algernon_ »

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.

The 4th amendment was written in 1791

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

#230

Post by charbroiled »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #183
multjoy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CP is better described as "images of child abuse", and the argument is that the viewing is revictimising the child. You appear to be suggesting that you shouldn't go to prison for possessing images of babies being raped?

You don't go to prison for possessing images of adults being raped, last I checked. Or adults being murdered. Or children being murdered. I don't think making the images illegal is a good way to handle things.

You do in some countries. For instance, knowingly possessing video of the Christchurch massacre is illegal in New Zealand, due to a ruling by NZ’s Chief Censor (yes, that’s the actual title), and punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Personally, I prefer the American way.

Post reply on HN