Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ...
by bluGill on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @04:10PM
(#41999669)
It seems like that is very relaxant information that was not considered by the court. If this was a cryptographic hash I would say with high confidence that this is the same image and so Google examined it - there is a small chance that some unrelated file (which might not even be a picture) matches but odds are the universe will end before that happens and so the courts can consider it the same image for search purposes. However because there are many false positive cases there is reasonable odds that the image is legal and so a higher standard for search is needed - a warrant.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ...
by wonnage on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @04:43PM
(#42000038)
That's the exact conclusion that was reached - the search required a warrant.
Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ...
by bluGill on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @09:22PM
(#42002462)
the court implied even a hash without collisions would not count when it should.
Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ...
by nullc on Thursday October 31, 2024 @12:41AM
(#42003560)
It shouldn't. Google hasn't otherwise seen the image, so the employee couldn't have witnessed a crime. There are reportedly many perfectly legal images that end up in these almost perfectly unaccountable databases.
Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ...
by cge on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @04:53PM
(#42000167)
>so the courts can consider it the same image for search purposes
An important part of the ruling seems to be that neither Google nor the police had the original image or any information about it, so the police viewing the image gave them more information than Google matching the hash gave Google: for example, consider how the suspect being in the image would have changed the case, or what might happen if the image turned out not to be CSAM, but showed the suspect storing drugs somewhere, or was even, somehow, something entirely legal but embarrassing to the suspect. This isn't changed by the type of hash.