7 ms·

I'm trying to imagine a more "real-world" example of this to see how I feel about it. I dislike that there is yet another loophole to gain access to peoples' da

I'm trying to imagine a more "real-world" example of this to see how I feel about it. I dislike that there is yet another loophole to gain access to peoples' data for legal reasons, but this does feel like a reasonable approach and a valid goal to pursue. I guess it's like if someone noticed you had a case shaped exactly like a machine gun, told the police, and they went to check if it was registered or not? I suppose that seems perfectly reasonable, but I'm happy to hear counter-arguments.

cool_dude85 2y ago
I think the real-world analogy would be to say that the case is shaped exactly like a machine gun and the hotel calls the police, who then open the case without a warrant. The "private search" doctrine allows the police to repeat a search done by a private party, but here (as in the machine gun case), the case was not actually searched by a private party.
aiforecastthway 2y ago
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 world" analogy that comes to mind might be a real estate management company uses security cameras or some other method to determine that there is a crime occurring in a space that they are renting out to another party. The real estate management company then sends evidence to the police. In the case of real property -- rental housing and warehouse/storage space in particular -- this happens all the time. I think that this ruling is imminently reasonable as a piece of case law (ie, the judge got the law as it exists correct). I also thing this precedent would strike a healthy policy balance as well (ie, the law as it exists if interpreted how the judge in this case interprets it would a good policy situation).
- DragonStrength 2y ago
  The issue of course being the government then pressuring or requiring these companies to look for some sort of content as part of routine operations.
  - aiforecastthway 2y ago
    I agree. This is a case where the physical analogy leads us to (imo) the correct conclusion: compelling major property management companies to perform regular searches of their tenant's properties, and then to report any findings to the police, is hopefully something that most judges understand to be a clear violation of the fourth amendment.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    > The issue of course being the government then pressuring or requiring these companies to look for some sort of content as part of routine operations. Was that the case here?
    - aiforecastthway 2y ago
      Not requiring, but certainly pressure. See https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-issue-call-for-limits-on-government-surveillance-of-users.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-is... for example. Also all of the heat Apple took over rolling back its perceptual hashing.
- kulahan 2y ago
  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.
  - oefnak 2y ago
    With their hidden camera in the bathroom.
jjk7 2y ago
It's like a digital 'smell'; Google is a drug sniffing dog.
- aiforecastthway 2y ago
  I don't think the analogy holds for two reasons (which cut in opposite directions from the perspective of fourth amendment jurisprudence, fwiw). First, the dragnet surveillance that Google performs is very different from the targeted surveillance that can be performed by a drug dog. Drug dogs are not used "everywhere and always"; rather, they are mostly used in situations where people have a less reasonable expectation of privacy than the expectation they have over their cloud storage accounts. Second, the nature of the evidence is quite different. Drug-sniffing dogs are inscrutable and non-deterministic and transmit handler bias. Hashing algorithms can be interrogated and are deterministic and do not have such bias transferal issues; collisions do occur, but are rare, especially because the "search key" set is so minuscule relative to the space of possible hashes. The narrowness and precision of the hashing method preserves most of the privacy expectations that society is currently willing to recognize as objectively reasonable. Here we get directly to the heart of the problem with the fictitious "reasonable person" used in tests like the Katz test, especially in cases where societal norms and technology co-evolve at a pace far more rapid than that of the courts.
- praptak 2y ago
  This analogy can have two opposite meanings. Drug dogs can be anything from a prop used by the police to search your car without a warrant (a cop can always say in court the dog "alerted" them) to a useful drug detection tool.
ok_computer 2y ago
But this court decision is a real world example, and not some esoteric edge case. This is something I don’t think needs analogies to understand. SA/CP image and video distribution is an ongoing moderation, network, and storage issue. The right to not be under constant digital surveillance is somewhat protected in the constitution. I like speech and privacy and am paranoid of corporate or government overreach, but I arrive at the same conclusion as you taking this court decision at face value.
- startupsfail 2y ago
  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).
  - ok_computer 2y ago
    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 cloud storage then it sort of makes sense. You need to ensure you are not aiding or harboring actually harmful illegal material. I get there are slippery slopes or whatever but the fact is you cannot just store whatever you wish in a rental. I don’t see this as opening mass regex surveillance of our communication channels. We have the patriot act to do that lol.
    - immibis 2y ago
      > You need to ensure you are not aiding or harboring actually harmful illegal material. Is this actually true, legally speaking?
      - ok_computer 2y ago
hyperliner 2y ago
[dead]
Thorrez 2y ago
>yet another loophole What's the new legal loophole? I believe what's described above is the same as it's been for decades, if not centuries. Disclosure: I work at Google but not on anything related to this.

cool_dude85 2y ago

I think the real-world analogy would be to say that the case is shaped exactly like a machine gun and the hotel calls the police, who then open the case without a warrant. The "private search" doctrine allows the police to repeat a search done by a private party, but here (as in the machine gun case), the case was not actually searched by a private party.

aiforecastthway 2y ago

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 world" analogy that comes to mind might be a real estate management company uses security cameras or some other method to determine that there is a crime occurring in a space that they are renting out to another party. The real estate management company then sends evidence to the police. In the case of real property -- rental housing and warehouse/storage space in particular -- this happens all the time. I think that this ruling is imminently reasonable as a piece of case law (ie, the judge got the law as it exists correct). I also thing this precedent would strike a healthy policy balance as well (ie, the law as it exists if interpreted how the judge in this case interprets it would a good policy situation).

DragonStrength 2y ago
The issue of course being the government then pressuring or requiring these companies to look for some sort of content as part of routine operations.
- aiforecastthway 2y ago
  I agree. This is a case where the physical analogy leads us to (imo) the correct conclusion: compelling major property management companies to perform regular searches of their tenant's properties, and then to report any findings to the police, is hopefully something that most judges understand to be a clear violation of the fourth amendment.
- leereeves 2y ago
  > The issue of course being the government then pressuring or requiring these companies to look for some sort of content as part of routine operations. Was that the case here?
  - aiforecastthway 2y ago
    Not requiring, but certainly pressure. See https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-issue-call-for-limits-on-government-surveillance-of-users.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-is... for example. Also all of the heat Apple took over rolling back its perceptual hashing.
kulahan 2y ago
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.
- oefnak 2y ago
  With their hidden camera in the bathroom.

jjk7 2y ago

It's like a digital 'smell'; Google is a drug sniffing dog.

aiforecastthway 2y ago
I don't think the analogy holds for two reasons (which cut in opposite directions from the perspective of fourth amendment jurisprudence, fwiw). First, the dragnet surveillance that Google performs is very different from the targeted surveillance that can be performed by a drug dog. Drug dogs are not used "everywhere and always"; rather, they are mostly used in situations where people have a less reasonable expectation of privacy than the expectation they have over their cloud storage accounts. Second, the nature of the evidence is quite different. Drug-sniffing dogs are inscrutable and non-deterministic and transmit handler bias. Hashing algorithms can be interrogated and are deterministic and do not have such bias transferal issues; collisions do occur, but are rare, especially because the "search key" set is so minuscule relative to the space of possible hashes. The narrowness and precision of the hashing method preserves most of the privacy expectations that society is currently willing to recognize as objectively reasonable. Here we get directly to the heart of the problem with the fictitious "reasonable person" used in tests like the Katz test, especially in cases where societal norms and technology co-evolve at a pace far more rapid than that of the courts.
praptak 2y ago
This analogy can have two opposite meanings. Drug dogs can be anything from a prop used by the police to search your car without a warrant (a cop can always say in court the dog "alerted" them) to a useful drug detection tool.

ok_computer 2y ago

But this court decision is a real world example, and not some esoteric edge case. This is something I don’t think needs analogies to understand. SA/CP image and video distribution is an ongoing moderation, network, and storage issue. The right to not be under constant digital surveillance is somewhat protected in the constitution. I like speech and privacy and am paranoid of corporate or government overreach, but I arrive at the same conclusion as you taking this court decision at face value.

startupsfail 2y ago
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).
- ok_computer 2y ago
  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 cloud storage then it sort of makes sense. You need to ensure you are not aiding or harboring actually harmful illegal material. I get there are slippery slopes or whatever but the fact is you cannot just store whatever you wish in a rental. I don’t see this as opening mass regex surveillance of our communication channels. We have the patriot act to do that lol.
  - immibis 2y ago
    > You need to ensure you are not aiding or harboring actually harmful illegal material. Is this actually true, legally speaking?
    - ok_computer 2y ago

hyperliner 2y ago

[dead]

Thorrez 2y ago

>yet another loophole What's the new legal loophole? I believe what's described above is the same as it's been for decades, if not centuries. Disclosure: I work at Google but not on anything related to this.