3 ms·

Is Google doing it as well supposed to make me feel better or worse? That kind of logic always bothers me, because it bypasses the arguments about whether it's

Is Google doing it as well supposed to make me feel better or worse? That kind of logic always bothers me, because it bypasses the arguments about whether it's good or wrong, and just says "well others are doing it, too - so it must be okay". It's like saying "well UK tortured as well, so why does it matter that US tortured?" I think you get my point. I also doubt that if they get a warrant, they'll only scan the drives for the hashes. That seems highly unlikely unless the FBI/prosecutors themselves specify in their request to the judge that they only want to do the hash scanning - but I don't see why they would want to limit themselves to that, when they know the judge is likely to give them full access to it, if they already have some evidence of "criminal activity", without which I assume they wouldn't even bother getting a warrant.

dmix 12y ago
> That seems highly unlikely unless the FBI/prosecutors themselves specify in their request to the judge that they only want to do the hash scanning It depends on the case I guess. I heard this from a lawyer I know who has worked on CP cases. Judges always try to limit the privacy exposure in every warrant. By doing so the police can get access to warrants easier since it requires a lower threshold of probable cause than say searching an entire house. Especially if the police found the person because they used a P2P site to download a particular file or had a hash in their email account. A minimal warrant to search for that hash is much easier to defend in court against arguments by the defense of constitutional privacy violations of a full data search. The police have to do this minimization process in phone wiretaps as well. They aren't supposed to listen nor store the phone call unless the information is relevant to the case. These limitations are clearly defined in warrants. It is up to the police and forensic experts to follow it of course. But I'd imagine in high profile cases the Judge/FBI wouldn't think twice about finding it appropriate to look at every file.

dmix 12y ago

> That seems highly unlikely unless the FBI/prosecutors themselves specify in their request to the judge that they only want to do the hash scanning It depends on the case I guess. I heard this from a lawyer I know who has worked on CP cases. Judges always try to limit the privacy exposure in every warrant. By doing so the police can get access to warrants easier since it requires a lower threshold of probable cause than say searching an entire house. Especially if the police found the person because they used a P2P site to download a particular file or had a hash in their email account. A minimal warrant to search for that hash is much easier to defend in court against arguments by the defense of constitutional privacy violations of a full data search. The police have to do this minimization process in phone wiretaps as well. They aren't supposed to listen nor store the phone call unless the information is relevant to the case. These limitations are clearly defined in warrants. It is up to the police and forensic experts to follow it of course. But I'd imagine in high profile cases the Judge/FBI wouldn't think twice about finding it appropriate to look at every file.