5 ms·

It's crazy that the most dangerous people one regularly encounters can do anything they want as long as they believe they can do it. The good faith exemption ha

It's crazy that the most dangerous people one regularly encounters can do anything they want as long as they believe they can do it. The good faith exemption has to be one of the most fascist laws on the books today. > "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." In no other context or career can you do anything you want and get away with it just as long as you say you thought you could. You'd think police offiers would be held to a higher standard, not no standard.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rmbyrro 2y ago
I think the judge chose to relax a lot on this one due to the circumstances. Releasing a man in society found with 4,000 child porn photos in his computer would be a shame. But yeah, this opens too wide gates of precedence for tyranny, unfortunately...
LudwigNagasena 2y ago
> you do anything you want and get away with it just as long as you say you thought you could. Isn't that the motto of VC? Uber, AirBnB, WeWork, etc...
- superkuh 2y ago
  Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I thought the context provided it. > you do any illegal action you want and get away with it just as long as you say you thought you could. And as for corporations: that's the point of incorporating. Reducing liability.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    I don't think your clarification made much of a difference: A lot of the shit those VC-backed gig-worker-abusers do probably is (and certainly should be) illegal, too.
ziml77 2y ago
Good Samaritan laws tend to function similarly
- kulahan 2y ago
  It's not exactly the same imo, since GS laws are meant to protect someone who is genuinely trying to do what a reasonable person could consider "something positive"
- hajile 2y ago
  If I'm not a professional and I hurt someone while trying to save their life by doing something stupid, that's understandable ignorance. If a doctor stops to help someone and hurts them because the doctor did something stupid, that is malpractice and could get them sued and maybe get their license revoked. Would you hire a programmer who refused to learn how to code the claimed "good faith" every time they screwed things up? Good faith shouldn't cover willful ignorance. A cop is hired to know, understand, and enforce the law. If they can't do that, they should be fired.
yieldcrv 2y ago
> In no other context or career can you do anything you want and get away with it just as long as you say you thought you could Many white collar crimes, financial and securities fraud/violations can be thwarted this way Basically, ignorance of the law is no excuse except when you specifically write the law to say it is an excuse Something that contributes to the DOJ not really trying to bring convictions against individuals at bigger financial institutions And yeah, a lot of people make sure to write their industry’s laws that way
mcosta 2y ago
It is not "you say you thought you could", it is "you have reasonable evidence a crime is happening". The reasonable here is "google said it", and it was true. If the police arrive at a house on a domestic abuse call, and hears screams for help, is breaking down the door done in good faith?
- superkuh 2y ago
  In this case you're correct. But the good faith exemption is far broader than this and applies to even officer's completely personal false beliefs in their authority.
glitcher 2y ago
And specifically with respect to the law, breaking a law and claiming you didn't know you did anything wrong as an individual is not considered a valid defense in our justice system. This same type of standard should apply even more to trained law enforcement, not less, otherwise it becomes a double standard.
- bluGill 2y ago
  No this is breaking the law by saying this looked like one of the situations where I already know the law doesn't apply. If Google had looked at the actual image and said it was child porn instead of just saying it was similar to some image that is child porn this would be 100% legal as the courts have already said. That difference is subtle enough that I can see how someone would get it wrong (and in fact I would expect other courts to rule differently)
  - BlarfMcFlarf 2y ago
    Doesn’t address the point. Does everyone get a good faith exception from laws they don’t know or misunderstand, or just the police?
    - bluGill 2y ago
      when the law isn't clear and so reasonable people would understand it as you did you should get a pass.
anigbrowl 2y ago
That's not what this means. One can ask whether the belief is reasonable, that is justifiable by a reasoning process. The argument for applying the GFE in this case is that the probability of false positives from a perceptual hash match is low enough that it's OK to assume it's legit and open the image to verify that it was indeed child porn. They then used that finding to get warrants to search the guy's gmail account and later his home.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rmbyrro 2y ago

I think the judge chose to relax a lot on this one due to the circumstances. Releasing a man in society found with 4,000 child porn photos in his computer would be a shame. But yeah, this opens too wide gates of precedence for tyranny, unfortunately...

LudwigNagasena 2y ago

> you do anything you want and get away with it just as long as you say you thought you could. Isn't that the motto of VC? Uber, AirBnB, WeWork, etc...

superkuh 2y ago
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I thought the context provided it. > you do any illegal action you want and get away with it just as long as you say you thought you could. And as for corporations: that's the point of incorporating. Reducing liability.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  I don't think your clarification made much of a difference: A lot of the shit those VC-backed gig-worker-abusers do probably is (and certainly should be) illegal, too.

ziml77 2y ago

Good Samaritan laws tend to function similarly

kulahan 2y ago
It's not exactly the same imo, since GS laws are meant to protect someone who is genuinely trying to do what a reasonable person could consider "something positive"
hajile 2y ago
If I'm not a professional and I hurt someone while trying to save their life by doing something stupid, that's understandable ignorance. If a doctor stops to help someone and hurts them because the doctor did something stupid, that is malpractice and could get them sued and maybe get their license revoked. Would you hire a programmer who refused to learn how to code the claimed "good faith" every time they screwed things up? Good faith shouldn't cover willful ignorance. A cop is hired to know, understand, and enforce the law. If they can't do that, they should be fired.

yieldcrv 2y ago

> In no other context or career can you do anything you want and get away with it just as long as you say you thought you could Many white collar crimes, financial and securities fraud/violations can be thwarted this way Basically, ignorance of the law is no excuse except when you specifically write the law to say it is an excuse Something that contributes to the DOJ not really trying to bring convictions against individuals at bigger financial institutions And yeah, a lot of people make sure to write their industry’s laws that way

mcosta 2y ago

It is not "you say you thought you could", it is "you have reasonable evidence a crime is happening". The reasonable here is "google said it", and it was true. If the police arrive at a house on a domestic abuse call, and hears screams for help, is breaking down the door done in good faith?

superkuh 2y ago
In this case you're correct. But the good faith exemption is far broader than this and applies to even officer's completely personal false beliefs in their authority.

glitcher 2y ago

And specifically with respect to the law, breaking a law and claiming you didn't know you did anything wrong as an individual is not considered a valid defense in our justice system. This same type of standard should apply even more to trained law enforcement, not less, otherwise it becomes a double standard.

bluGill 2y ago
No this is breaking the law by saying this looked like one of the situations where I already know the law doesn't apply. If Google had looked at the actual image and said it was child porn instead of just saying it was similar to some image that is child porn this would be 100% legal as the courts have already said. That difference is subtle enough that I can see how someone would get it wrong (and in fact I would expect other courts to rule differently)
- BlarfMcFlarf 2y ago
  Doesn’t address the point. Does everyone get a good faith exception from laws they don’t know or misunderstand, or just the police?
  - bluGill 2y ago
    when the law isn't clear and so reasonable people would understand it as you did you should get a pass.

anigbrowl 2y ago

That's not what this means. One can ask whether the belief is reasonable, that is justifiable by a reasoning process. The argument for applying the GFE in this case is that the probability of false positives from a perceptual hash match is low enough that it's OK to assume it's legit and open the image to verify that it was indeed child porn. They then used that finding to get warrants to search the guy's gmail account and later his home.