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

Pretty much all rental storage, shipping container, 3rd party semi trailer pool, safe deposit box type services and business agreements stipulate that the user of the arbitrary box gets to deny the owner of the arbitrary box access so long as they're holding up their end of the deal. The point is that the user is wholly responsible for the security of the contents of the arbitrary box and the owner bears no liability for the contents. This is why (well run) rental storage places make you use your own lock and if you don't pay they add an additional lock rather than removing yours.

> > Strict liability for possession in particular is nonsense.

> I entirely disagree. Offenders tend to increase their level of offense.

For an example of unintended consequences of strict liability for possession look at Germany where the legal advice for what to do if you come across CSAM is to delete it and say nothing because reporting it to the police would incriminate you for possession and if you deleted a prosecutor could charge you with evidence tampering on top of it.

Also, as I understand it, in the US there have also been cases of minors deliberately taking "nudes" or sexting with other minors leading to charges of production and distribution of CSAM for their own pictures they took of themselves.

The production and distribution of CSAM should 100% be criminalized and going after possession seems reasonable to me. But clearly the laws are lacking if they also criminalize horny teenagers being stupid or people trying to do the right thing and report CSAM they come across.

> The appropriate response to recognizing these feelings is [..] to get them into therapy immediately.

Also 100% agree with this. In Germany there was a widespread media campaign "Kein Täter werden" (roughly "not becoming a predator") targeting adults who find sexually attracted to children. They anonymized the actors for obvious reasons but I like that they portrayed the pedophiles with a wide range of characters from different walks of life and different age groups. The message was to seek therapy. They provided a hotline as well as ways of getting additional information anonymously.

Loudly yelling "kill all pedophiles" doesn't help prevent child abuse (in fact, there is a tendency for abusers to join in because it provides cover and they often don't see themselves as the problem) but feeding into pedophilia certainly isn't helpful either. The correct answer is therapy but also moving away from a culture (and it is cultural not innate) that fetishizes youth, especially in women (sorry, "girls"). This also means fighting all child abuse, not just sexual.

> It's effectively the same reason we harshly prosecute people who torture animals.

Alas harsh sentencing isn't therapy. Arguably incarceration merely acts as a pause button at best. You don't get rid of nazis by making them hang out on Stormfront or 8kun.

Correct. A simple tip does not amount to probable cause by itself.

The 4th amendment is about unreasonable searches and seizures, it is also about "persons, houses, papers, and effects", that is, not files stored in someone else's computer.

The police here considered that a hash match was a reasonable enough condition to conduct a search, and that Google's TOS allowed it. They were wrong, but it is not obvious that they were by just reading the 4th amendment, and the situation is rather new, so it is reasonable to assume that the police acted in good faith.

> Don't you think that if Google were deluging the cops with false positive reports that turned out to be perfectly innocuous 999 times out of 1000, that police would call them up and say 'why are you wasting our time with this?' Or that defense lawyers wouldn't be raising hell if there were large numbers of clients being investigated over nothing? And how would running it through a judge first improve that process?

Yes, sure.. they send them a batch of photos, thousands even, and someone from the police skims the photos... a fishing expedition would be the right term for that.

> OK, but what is the probability of that happening? And if such images are being mailed in bulk, what would be the purpose other than to provide cover for CSAM traders? The tactic would only be viable for as long as it takes a platform operator to change up their hashing algorithm. And again, how would the extra legal step of consulting a judge alleviate this?

You never visited 4chan?

> But that's not happening. As I pointed out, police examined the submitted image evidence to determine of it was CP (it was). Then they got a warrant to search the gmail account, and following that another warrant to search his home. The didn't investigate the criminal first, the investigated an image file submitted to them to determine whether it was evidence of a crime.

They first entered your home illegally and found a joint on the table, and then got a warrant for the rest of the house. As pointed out in the article and in the title... they should need a warrant for the first image too.

> And yet again, how would bouncing this off a judge improve the process? The judge will just look at the report submitted to the police and a standard police letter saying 'reports of this kind are reliable in our experience' and then tell the police yes, go ahead and look.

Sure, if it brings enough results. But if they issue 200 warrants and get zero results, things will have to change, both for police and for google. This is like saying "that guy has long hair, he's probably a hippy and has drugs, let's get a search warrant for his house". Currently we don't know the numbers, and most people (you excluded) believe that police shouldn't search private data of people just because some algorithm thinks so, without a warrant.