[uniformlyrandom]

> Google’s hash match may well have established probable cause for a warrant to allow police to conduct a visual examination of the Maher file.

Very reasonable. Google can flag accounts as CP, but then a judge still needs to issue a warrant for the police to actually go and look at the file. Good job court. Extra points for reasoning about hash values.

[pdonis]

> a judge still needs to issue a warrant for the police to actually go and look at the file

Only in the future. Maher's conviction, based on the warrantless search, still stands because the court found that the "good faith exception" applies--the court affirmed the District Court's finding that the police officers who conducted the warrantless search had a good faith belief that no warrant was required for the search.

[AcerbicZero]

I wonder what happened to fruit of the poisoned tree? Seems a lot more liberty oriented than "good faith exception" when police don't think they need a warrant (because police never seem to "think" they need a warrant).

[kulahan]

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.

[aiforecastthway]

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).

[cool_dude85]

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.

[ok_computer]

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.

[jjk7]

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

[Thorrez]

>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.

[nashashmi]

If the police “wanted” to look. But what if they were notified of the material? Then the police should not need a warrant, right?

[dylan604]

Don't they?. If you tell the cops that your neighbor has drugs of significant quantity in their house, would they not still need a warrant to actually go into your neighbor's house?

[jkhdigital]

There are a lot of nuances to these situations of third-party involvement and the ruling discusses these at length. If you’re interested in the precise limits of the 4th amendment you should really just read the linked document.

[stjohnswarts]

they should as a matter of course. but I guess "papers" you entrust to someone else are a gray area. I personally think that it goes against the separation of police state and democracy, but I'm a nobody, so it doesn't matter I suppose.

[petermcneeley]

No. What I send through my email is between me and God.

[gcbirzan]

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.

[bluGill]

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.

[jjk7]

Yes. How else would you prevent framing someone?