4 ms·

I suppose it’s defensive behavior. If they admit their mistake now then they could potentially be liable for the damages caused by their mistake years ago. Now

I suppose it’s defensive behavior. If they admit their mistake now then they could potentially be liable for the damages caused by their mistake years ago. Now any lawsuit would need to determine if there was an error and harm instead of just quantifying the harm. I’d like to contribute to a crowdsource fund to prosecute cases like this. When I was a kid the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund [0] was set up to pay for lawyers to defend comic book stores that were being targeted by over eager police departments and civil suits. Maybe something like the Google is an Asshole Legal Defense Fund could collect donations. The article mentions $7000 as the cost to prosecute this persons case. Crowdsourcing can help with that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Book_Legal_Defense_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Book_Legal_Defense_Fund

sandworm101 4y ago
7000$ is a pitance. Maybe this case is simple, but many will not be. Say they raid a house and confiscate a hard drive. Encrypted or not, that is going to be a huge thing. Arguments will be made about whether anything incriminating was stored on that drive. Just google the cost of a forensic expert witness. Both sides will need one. Such costs are actually why so many police agencies are backing off of CP investigations. They still prosecute where evidence is clear, such as when someone emails such material openly, but they arent willing to invest the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to handle the complex cases involving encrypted communication/storage. 7000$ would be a bare minimum for only the simplest of legal defenses in the simplest of cases.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  The reference to $7k isn’t to prosecute a CP case, it was to sue google to reinstate his account so he could get his digital life back.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Which would involve defending his case. The defense's budget has to be in 5he same league as the prosecution.
    - zuminator 4y ago
      You've got that switched around. No charges were filed against him. So he would have to commence a suit against Google. Google would be the defendant and he would be the plaintiff prosecuting a claim.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Which to be fair, the guy lives in San Francisco. It isn't that hard to file a small claims case. I understand that there may be some legal nuisances involved, but just getting the attention of the legal review team that will have to show up to defend the case is usually enough to get them to evaluate a matter beyond the algorithms. I don't think it is fair, but is much quicker and cheaper $7,000.
    - sgent 4y ago
      Maybe CA is different, but in most states small claims can't order equitable remedies (reinstating his account) and can only award money damages.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        What would be sought is return of property which small claims courts do have the power to enforce. A case trying to change the laws to force a company to provide services to you against their choice, with some exceptions for discrimination due to protected classes, would easily cost millions and is pretty much dead in the water from the get go. If the property value is assessed to be more than $10,000 then by all means seek relief in another court but note Google wouldn't be able to have a lawyer represent them in small claims.. If Google has to choose between sending an executive to small claims to defend the company without representation or try to resolve a dispute via settlement, they are likely to try to resolve it via settlement which is the type of relief this individual appears to be seeking.
        hn_go_brrrrr 4y ago
        Google has a team of non-lawyers with legal training whose job is to attend small claims court. They're not wasting an exec's time.
        encryptluks2 4y ago
        I don't see any information about this team of non-lawyer legal experts when doing a quick search, but regardless non-lawyers with legal training are usually still pretty expensive. Again, they are much more willing to listen and actually try to resolve an issue than first-response algorithm defenders. Most small claims even require mediation before trial, so if you don't get it settled before then you can just request dismissal without prejudice.
  - amirhirsch 4y ago
    He could probably find a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency. A jury might decide that he deserves millions in punitive damages and courts are probably the only way to force a human at google to provide support.
- bin_bash 4y ago
  This is a civil case—not criminal. The father would be suing Google, not the government suing the father for a crime.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    This one is. A legal fund cannot be aimed just at the most simple cases.
- quantified 4y ago
  Lucky for many to consider $7k a pittance. Probably a pittance to most HN participants, but certainly not for everyone.
aunterste 4y ago
I am not saying it is right, but to a large degree this is the cost that some of us 'pay' for millions having 'free' Gmail/GDrive etc. Fully automated processes that close accounts, no due process to get them timely reinstated when the machine made an error. You are correct, if they admit a mistake here, it will open the doors to lots of claims. I sometimes think they could a lot of people to pay for the service (with $ not just having their digital lives being harvested) if they knew to be treated better when something like this happens. The question everyone needs to ask themselves, if Google closed your account right now, for good - what would that do to your life...

sandworm101 4y ago

7000$ is a pitance. Maybe this case is simple, but many will not be. Say they raid a house and confiscate a hard drive. Encrypted or not, that is going to be a huge thing. Arguments will be made about whether anything incriminating was stored on that drive. Just google the cost of a forensic expert witness. Both sides will need one. Such costs are actually why so many police agencies are backing off of CP investigations. They still prosecute where evidence is clear, such as when someone emails such material openly, but they arent willing to invest the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to handle the complex cases involving encrypted communication/storage. 7000$ would be a bare minimum for only the simplest of legal defenses in the simplest of cases.

happyopossum 4y ago
The reference to $7k isn’t to prosecute a CP case, it was to sue google to reinstate his account so he could get his digital life back.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Which would involve defending his case. The defense's budget has to be in 5he same league as the prosecution.
  - zuminator 4y ago
    You've got that switched around. No charges were filed against him. So he would have to commence a suit against Google. Google would be the defendant and he would be the plaintiff prosecuting a claim.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Which to be fair, the guy lives in San Francisco. It isn't that hard to file a small claims case. I understand that there may be some legal nuisances involved, but just getting the attention of the legal review team that will have to show up to defend the case is usually enough to get them to evaluate a matter beyond the algorithms. I don't think it is fair, but is much quicker and cheaper $7,000.
  - sgent 4y ago
    Maybe CA is different, but in most states small claims can't order equitable remedies (reinstating his account) and can only award money damages.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      What would be sought is return of property which small claims courts do have the power to enforce. A case trying to change the laws to force a company to provide services to you against their choice, with some exceptions for discrimination due to protected classes, would easily cost millions and is pretty much dead in the water from the get go. If the property value is assessed to be more than $10,000 then by all means seek relief in another court but note Google wouldn't be able to have a lawyer represent them in small claims.. If Google has to choose between sending an executive to small claims to defend the company without representation or try to resolve a dispute via settlement, they are likely to try to resolve it via settlement which is the type of relief this individual appears to be seeking.
      - hn_go_brrrrr 4y ago
        Google has a team of non-lawyers with legal training whose job is to attend small claims court. They're not wasting an exec's time.
        encryptluks2 4y ago
        I don't see any information about this team of non-lawyer legal experts when doing a quick search, but regardless non-lawyers with legal training are usually still pretty expensive. Again, they are much more willing to listen and actually try to resolve an issue than first-response algorithm defenders. Most small claims even require mediation before trial, so if you don't get it settled before then you can just request dismissal without prejudice.
- amirhirsch 4y ago
  He could probably find a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency. A jury might decide that he deserves millions in punitive damages and courts are probably the only way to force a human at google to provide support.
bin_bash 4y ago
This is a civil case—not criminal. The father would be suing Google, not the government suing the father for a crime.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  This one is. A legal fund cannot be aimed just at the most simple cases.
quantified 4y ago
Lucky for many to consider $7k a pittance. Probably a pittance to most HN participants, but certainly not for everyone.

aunterste 4y ago

I am not saying it is right, but to a large degree this is the cost that some of us 'pay' for millions having 'free' Gmail/GDrive etc. Fully automated processes that close accounts, no due process to get them timely reinstated when the machine made an error. You are correct, if they admit a mistake here, it will open the doors to lots of claims. I sometimes think they could a lot of people to pay for the service (with $ not just having their digital lives being harvested) if they knew to be treated better when something like this happens. The question everyone needs to ask themselves, if Google closed your account right now, for good - what would that do to your life...