6 ms·

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 k

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.
  - kulahan 2y ago
    I just meant it as an analogy, not that I'm specifically on-board with AirBNB owners putting cameras in bathrooms. Anyways, that's why I just rent hotel rooms, personally. :)
- nashashmi 2y ago
  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 compliance. 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.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > 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. I don't believe that's the case. You don't need to state that illegal activities are not allowed; that's the default. > Then it would also have to explicitly mention what measures are taken to enforce it When Airbnb used to allow cameras indoors, they did -- after some backlash -- require hosts to disclose the presence of the cameras. > ... and what punishments are imposed for violations. No, I don't think that is or should be necessary. If you do illegal things, the possible punishments don't need to be enumerated by the person who reports you to the police. Put another way: if I'm hosting someone on Airbnb in the case where I'm living in the same property, and I walk into the kitchen to see my Airbnb guest dealing drugs, I am well within my rights to call the police, without having ever said anything up-front to my guest about whether or not that's acceptable behavior, or what the consequences might be. Having the drug deal instead caught on camera is no different, though I would agree that the presence of the cameras should have to be disclosed beforehand. In Google's case, the "camera" (aka CSAM scanning) appears to have been disclosed beforehand.
Brian_K_White 2y ago
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 owner "consented" to accept money in trade for use of property.
- aiforecastthway 2y ago
  > 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? Yes. Entering property for regular maintenance. Any time a landlord or his agent enters a piece of property, there is implicit surveillance. Some places are more formal about this than others, but anyone who has rented, owned rental property, or managed rental property knows that any time maintenance occurs there's an implicit examination of the premises also happening... But here is a more pertinent example: the regular comings and goings of people or property can be and often are observed from outside of a property. These can contribute to probable cause for a search of those premises even without direct observation. (E.g., large numbers of disheveled children moving through an apartment, or an exterior camera shot of a known fugitive entering the property.) Here the police could obtain a warrant on the basis of landlord's testimony without the landlord actually seeing the inside of the unit. This is somewhat similar to the case at hand, since what Google alerted the police to a hash match without actually looking at the image (ie, entering the bedroom). > I don't think you can reduce reality to being as simple as "owner has more right over property than renter" But I make no such reduction, and neither does the opinion. In fact, quite the opposite -- this is contributory why the court determines a warrant is required!
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > ...Google alerted the police to a hash match without actually looking at the image (ie, entering the bedroom). Google cannot have calculated that hash without examining the data in the image. They, or systems under there control obviously looked at the image. It should not legally matter whether the eyes are meat or machine... if anything, machine inspection should be MORE strictly regulated, because of how much easier and cheaper it tends to make surveillance (mass or otherwise).
irq-1 2y ago
> Party A discovers very high probability evidence that Party B is committing crimes within the property ... This isn't accurate: the hashes were purposefully compared to a specific list. They didn't happen to notice it, they looked specifically for it. And of course, what happens when it's a different list?
- aiforecastthway 2y ago
  >> Party A discovers very high probability evidence that Party B is committing crimes within the property ... > This isn't accurate: the hashes were purposefully compared to a specific list. They didn't happen to notice it, they looked specifically for it. 1. I don't understand how the text that comes on the right side of the colon substantiates the claim on the left side of the colon... I said "discovers", without mention of how it's discovered. 2. The specificity of the search cuts in exactly the opposite direction than you suggest; specificity makes the search far less invasive -- BUT, at the same time, the "everywhere and always" nature of the search makes it more invasive. The problem is the pervasiveness, not the specificity. See https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=aiforecastthway https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=aiforecastthway > And of course, what happens when it's a different list? The fact that the search is targeted, that the search is highly specific, and that the conduct plainly criminal, are all, in fact, highly material. The decision here is not relevant to most of the "worst case scenarios" or even "bad scenarios" in your head, because prior assumptions would have been violated prior to this moment in the legal evaluation. But with respect to your actual argument here... it's really a moot point. If the executive branch starts compelling companies to help them discover political enemies on basis of non-criminal activity, then the court's opinions will have exactly as much force as the army that court proves capable of raising, because such an executive would likely have no respect for the rule of law in any case... It is reasonable for legislators to draft laws on a certain assumption of good faith, and for courts to interpret law on a certain assumption of good faith, because without that good faith the law is nothing more than a sequence of forceless ink blotches on paper anyways.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I don't think that changes anything. I think it's entirely reasonable for Party A to be actively watching the rented property to see if crimes are being committed, either by the renter (Party B) or by someone else. The difference I do see, however, is that many places do have laws that restrict this sort of surveillance. If we're talking about an apartment building, a landlord can put cameras in common areas of the building, but cannot put cameras inside individual units. And with the exception of emergencies, many places require that a landlord give tenants some amount of notice before entering their unit. So if Google is checking user images against known CSAM image hashes, are those user images sitting out in the common areas, or are they in an individual tenant's unit? I think it should be obvious that it's the latter, not the former. Maybe this is more like a company that rents out storage units. Do storage companies generally have the right to enter their customers' storage units whenever they want, without notice or notification? Many storage companies allow customers to put their own locks on their units, so even if they have the right to enter whenever they want, regularly, in practice they certainly do not. But like all analogies, this one is going to have flaws. Even if we can't match it up with a real-world example, maybe there's still no inconsistency or problem here. Google's ToS says they can and will do this sort of scanning, users agree to it, and there's no law saying Google can't do that sort of thing. Google itself has no obligation to preserve users' 4th Amendment rights; they passed along evidence to the police. I do think the police should be required to obtain a warrant before gaining access to the underlying data; the judge agrees on this, but the police get away with it in the original case due to the bullshit "good faith exception".

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.
- kulahan 2y ago
  I just meant it as an analogy, not that I'm specifically on-board with AirBNB owners putting cameras in bathrooms. Anyways, that's why I just rent hotel rooms, personally. :)
nashashmi 2y ago
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 compliance. 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.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > 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. I don't believe that's the case. You don't need to state that illegal activities are not allowed; that's the default. > Then it would also have to explicitly mention what measures are taken to enforce it When Airbnb used to allow cameras indoors, they did -- after some backlash -- require hosts to disclose the presence of the cameras. > ... and what punishments are imposed for violations. No, I don't think that is or should be necessary. If you do illegal things, the possible punishments don't need to be enumerated by the person who reports you to the police. Put another way: if I'm hosting someone on Airbnb in the case where I'm living in the same property, and I walk into the kitchen to see my Airbnb guest dealing drugs, I am well within my rights to call the police, without having ever said anything up-front to my guest about whether or not that's acceptable behavior, or what the consequences might be. Having the drug deal instead caught on camera is no different, though I would agree that the presence of the cameras should have to be disclosed beforehand. In Google's case, the "camera" (aka CSAM scanning) appears to have been disclosed beforehand.

Brian_K_White 2y ago

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 owner "consented" to accept money in trade for use of property.

aiforecastthway 2y ago
> 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? Yes. Entering property for regular maintenance. Any time a landlord or his agent enters a piece of property, there is implicit surveillance. Some places are more formal about this than others, but anyone who has rented, owned rental property, or managed rental property knows that any time maintenance occurs there's an implicit examination of the premises also happening... But here is a more pertinent example: the regular comings and goings of people or property can be and often are observed from outside of a property. These can contribute to probable cause for a search of those premises even without direct observation. (E.g., large numbers of disheveled children moving through an apartment, or an exterior camera shot of a known fugitive entering the property.) Here the police could obtain a warrant on the basis of landlord's testimony without the landlord actually seeing the inside of the unit. This is somewhat similar to the case at hand, since what Google alerted the police to a hash match without actually looking at the image (ie, entering the bedroom). > I don't think you can reduce reality to being as simple as "owner has more right over property than renter" But I make no such reduction, and neither does the opinion. In fact, quite the opposite -- this is contributory why the court determines a warrant is required!
- simoncion 2y ago
  > ...Google alerted the police to a hash match without actually looking at the image (ie, entering the bedroom). Google cannot have calculated that hash without examining the data in the image. They, or systems under there control obviously looked at the image. It should not legally matter whether the eyes are meat or machine... if anything, machine inspection should be MORE strictly regulated, because of how much easier and cheaper it tends to make surveillance (mass or otherwise).

irq-1 2y ago

> Party A discovers very high probability evidence that Party B is committing crimes within the property ... This isn't accurate: the hashes were purposefully compared to a specific list. They didn't happen to notice it, they looked specifically for it. And of course, what happens when it's a different list?

aiforecastthway 2y ago
>> Party A discovers very high probability evidence that Party B is committing crimes within the property ... > This isn't accurate: the hashes were purposefully compared to a specific list. They didn't happen to notice it, they looked specifically for it. 1. I don't understand how the text that comes on the right side of the colon substantiates the claim on the left side of the colon... I said "discovers", without mention of how it's discovered. 2. The specificity of the search cuts in exactly the opposite direction than you suggest; specificity makes the search far less invasive -- BUT, at the same time, the "everywhere and always" nature of the search makes it more invasive. The problem is the pervasiveness, not the specificity. See https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=aiforecastthway https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=aiforecastthway > And of course, what happens when it's a different list? The fact that the search is targeted, that the search is highly specific, and that the conduct plainly criminal, are all, in fact, highly material. The decision here is not relevant to most of the "worst case scenarios" or even "bad scenarios" in your head, because prior assumptions would have been violated prior to this moment in the legal evaluation. But with respect to your actual argument here... it's really a moot point. If the executive branch starts compelling companies to help them discover political enemies on basis of non-criminal activity, then the court's opinions will have exactly as much force as the army that court proves capable of raising, because such an executive would likely have no respect for the rule of law in any case... It is reasonable for legislators to draft laws on a certain assumption of good faith, and for courts to interpret law on a certain assumption of good faith, because without that good faith the law is nothing more than a sequence of forceless ink blotches on paper anyways.
kelnos 2y ago
I don't think that changes anything. I think it's entirely reasonable for Party A to be actively watching the rented property to see if crimes are being committed, either by the renter (Party B) or by someone else. The difference I do see, however, is that many places do have laws that restrict this sort of surveillance. If we're talking about an apartment building, a landlord can put cameras in common areas of the building, but cannot put cameras inside individual units. And with the exception of emergencies, many places require that a landlord give tenants some amount of notice before entering their unit. So if Google is checking user images against known CSAM image hashes, are those user images sitting out in the common areas, or are they in an individual tenant's unit? I think it should be obvious that it's the latter, not the former. Maybe this is more like a company that rents out storage units. Do storage companies generally have the right to enter their customers' storage units whenever they want, without notice or notification? Many storage companies allow customers to put their own locks on their units, so even if they have the right to enter whenever they want, regularly, in practice they certainly do not. But like all analogies, this one is going to have flaws. Even if we can't match it up with a real-world example, maybe there's still no inconsistency or problem here. Google's ToS says they can and will do this sort of scanning, users agree to it, and there's no law saying Google can't do that sort of thing. Google itself has no obligation to preserve users' 4th Amendment rights; they passed along evidence to the police. I do think the police should be required to obtain a warrant before gaining access to the underlying data; the judge agrees on this, but the police get away with it in the original case due to the bullshit "good faith exception".