4 ms·

Is it reasonable? Even if the hash was md5, given valid image files, the chances of it being an accidental collision are way lower than the chance of any other

Is it reasonable? Even if the hash was md5, given valid image files, the chances of it being an accidental collision are way lower than the chance of any other evidence given to a judge was false or misinterpreted.

jjk7 2y ago
Yes. How else would you prevent framing someone?
- gcbirzan 2y ago
  So you're saying that I craft a file that has the same hash as a CSAM one, I give it to you, you upload it to google, but it also happens to be CSAM, and I've somehow framed you? My point is that a hash (granted, I'm assuming that we're talking about a cryptographic hash function, which is not clear) is much closer to "This is the file" than someone actually looking at it, and that it's definitely more proof of them having that sort of content than any other type of evidence.
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    I don't understand. If you contend that it's even better evidence than actually having the file and looking at it, how is not reasonable to then need a judge to issue a warrant to look at it? Are you saying it would be more reasonable to skip that part and go directly to arrest?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - wrs 2y ago
    These are perceptual hashes designed on purpose to be a little vague and broad so they catch transformed images. Not cryptographic hashes.
bluGill 2y ago
This is NOT a secure hash. This is an image similar to hash which has many many matches in not related images. Unfortunately the decision didn't mention this at all even though it is important. If it was even as good as a md5 hash (which is broken) I think the search should be allowed without warrant because even though a accidental collision is possible odds are so strongly against it that the courts can safely assume there isn't (and of course if there is the police would close the case). However since this has is not that good the police cannot look at the image unless Google does.
- aiforecastthway 2y ago
  I wish I could get access to the "App'x 29" being referenced so that I could better understand the judges' understanding here. I assume this is Federal Appendix 29 (in which case a more thorough reference would've been appreciated). If the Appeals Court is going to cite the Federal Appendix in a decision like this and in this manner, then the Federal Appendix is as good as case law and West Publishing's copyright claims should be ripped away. Either the Federal Appendix should not be cited in Appeals Court and Supreme Court opinions, or the Federal Appenix is part of the law and belongs to the people. There is no middle there. > I think the search should be allowed without warrant because even though a accidental collision is possible odds are so strongly against it that the courts can safely assume there isn't The footnote in the decision bakes this property into the definition of a hash: A “hash” or “hash value” is “(usually) a short string of characters generated from a much larger string of data (say, an electronic image) using an algorithm—and calculated in a way that makes it highly unlikely another set of data will produce the same value. (Importantly, this is NOT an accurate definition of a hash for anyone remotely technical... of course hashing algorithms with significant hash collisions exist, and is even a design criterion for some hashing algorithms...)
  - kyleee 2y ago
    We can’t access appendix 29? Is that what you are saying?
  - freejazz 2y ago
    >I wish I could get access to the "App'x 29" being referenced so that I could better understand the judges' understanding here. I assume this is Federal Appendix 29 (in which case a more thorough reference would've been appreciated). If the Appeals Court is going to cite the Federal Appendix in a decision like this and in this manner, then the Federal Appendix is as good as case law and West Publishing's copyright claims should be ripped away. Either the Federal Appendix should not be cited in Appeals Court and Supreme Court opinions, or the Federal Appenix is part of the law and belongs to the people. There is no middle there. Just go to a law library. Do you know that judges routinely make decisions based on confidential documents not in the public record? Is that also bad?

jjk7 2y ago

Yes. How else would you prevent framing someone?

gcbirzan 2y ago
So you're saying that I craft a file that has the same hash as a CSAM one, I give it to you, you upload it to google, but it also happens to be CSAM, and I've somehow framed you? My point is that a hash (granted, I'm assuming that we're talking about a cryptographic hash function, which is not clear) is much closer to "This is the file" than someone actually looking at it, and that it's definitely more proof of them having that sort of content than any other type of evidence.
- fluoridation 2y ago
  I don't understand. If you contend that it's even better evidence than actually having the file and looking at it, how is not reasonable to then need a judge to issue a warrant to look at it? Are you saying it would be more reasonable to skip that part and go directly to arrest?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- wrs 2y ago
  These are perceptual hashes designed on purpose to be a little vague and broad so they catch transformed images. Not cryptographic hashes.

bluGill 2y ago

This is NOT a secure hash. This is an image similar to hash which has many many matches in not related images. Unfortunately the decision didn't mention this at all even though it is important. If it was even as good as a md5 hash (which is broken) I think the search should be allowed without warrant because even though a accidental collision is possible odds are so strongly against it that the courts can safely assume there isn't (and of course if there is the police would close the case). However since this has is not that good the police cannot look at the image unless Google does.

aiforecastthway 2y ago
I wish I could get access to the "App'x 29" being referenced so that I could better understand the judges' understanding here. I assume this is Federal Appendix 29 (in which case a more thorough reference would've been appreciated). If the Appeals Court is going to cite the Federal Appendix in a decision like this and in this manner, then the Federal Appendix is as good as case law and West Publishing's copyright claims should be ripped away. Either the Federal Appendix should not be cited in Appeals Court and Supreme Court opinions, or the Federal Appenix is part of the law and belongs to the people. There is no middle there. > I think the search should be allowed without warrant because even though a accidental collision is possible odds are so strongly against it that the courts can safely assume there isn't The footnote in the decision bakes this property into the definition of a hash: A “hash” or “hash value” is “(usually) a short string of characters generated from a much larger string of data (say, an electronic image) using an algorithm—and calculated in a way that makes it highly unlikely another set of data will produce the same value. (Importantly, this is NOT an accurate definition of a hash for anyone remotely technical... of course hashing algorithms with significant hash collisions exist, and is even a design criterion for some hashing algorithms...)
- kyleee 2y ago
  We can’t access appendix 29? Is that what you are saying?
- freejazz 2y ago
  >I wish I could get access to the "App'x 29" being referenced so that I could better understand the judges' understanding here. I assume this is Federal Appendix 29 (in which case a more thorough reference would've been appreciated). If the Appeals Court is going to cite the Federal Appendix in a decision like this and in this manner, then the Federal Appendix is as good as case law and West Publishing's copyright claims should be ripped away. Either the Federal Appendix should not be cited in Appeals Court and Supreme Court opinions, or the Federal Appenix is part of the law and belongs to the people. There is no middle there. Just go to a law library. Do you know that judges routinely make decisions based on confidential documents not in the public record? Is that also bad?