Apple is listening though, as one of my comments has been addressed, which explains why I gave the hash database
I am disagreeing with these two statements:
"However the 4th Amendment interpretation is rather different to how it was envisaged when it was created, and where the USA and no doubt other countries have found a way to circumvent privacy laws, so they can shout from the rooftop about safeguarding privacy, whilst driving a coach and horses through it, FOR ANY PURPOSE, so its not about child abuse."
"With regards to the USA they are doing this because the 4th Amendment after Court rulings decided that you can circumvent the privacy enshrined in the 4th Amendment because they deem it ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT ACTION BUT DOES NOT CONSTRAIN PRIVATE PARTIES"
The 4th amendment was envisaged to only apply to the federal government in 1791.
The 4th amendment was envisaged to not apply to private companies, both in 1791 and in 2021. Nothing has changed.
No court rulings can have decided that the 4th amendment only applies to government actions since it has been that way since 1791.
No court rulings can have decided that the 4th amendment doesn't constrain private parties (including private search) since it has been that way since 1791.
At best these court cases can only have confirmed a long standing practise.
The cases you refer to have dealt with the issue of how much search a government party can do after a private search before needing a search warrant.
NCMEC was considered a government agent in United States vs. Ackerman.
Again without intending disrespect you seem to be swivelling all the time and then changing what you are complaining about after getting everything else wrong.
I am disagreeing with these two statements:
"However the 4th Amendment interpretation is rather different to how it was envisaged when it was created, and where the USA and no doubt other countries have found a way to circumvent privacy laws, so they can shout from the rooftop about safeguarding privacy, whilst driving a coach and horses through it, FOR ANY PURPOSE, so its not about child abuse."
"With regards to the USA they are doing this because the 4th Amendment after Court rulings decided that you can circumvent the privacy enshrined in the 4th Amendment because they deem it ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT ACTION BUT DOES NOT CONSTRAIN PRIVATE PARTIES"
The 4th amendment was envisaged to only apply to the federal government in 1791.
The 4th amendment was envisaged to not apply to private companies, both in 1791 and in 2021. Nothing has changed.
No court rulings can have decided that the 4th amendment only applies to government actions since it has been that way since 1791.
No court rulings can have decided that the 4th amendment doesn't constrain private parties (including private search) since it has been that way since 1791.
At best these court cases can only have confirmed a long standing practise.
The cases you refer to have dealt with the issue of how much search a government party can do after a private search before needing a search warrant.
NCMEC was considered a government agent in United States vs. Ackerman.
Ackerman is certainly interesting but sadly none of these cases actually matter too much any more because as a result of good faith exceptions now, even if a party is private the good faith exception can apply. So basically you are not safe from any real surveillance, private or otherwise, but the cases are interesting and thank you for bringing Ackerman to the table. It probably bores the pants of most people, but like all laws subject to differences in interpretation and of course where for example arguments on whether a body is private or not, no longer really safeguards, because of the good faith exceptions, which is even more worrying for privacy issues.
United States v. Ackerman, No. 17-3238 (10th Cir. 2020) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
law.justia.com
"Ackerman filed a motion to suppress. He argued that both AOL and NCMEC were government actors and that their searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights. See R1.13. The district court denied Ackerman’s motion following an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Ackerman, No. 13-10176-01-EFM, 2014 WL 2968164, at *1 (D. Kan. July 1, 2014).
The court concluded that neither AOL nor NCMEC were government actors. See id. at *5–8. It also concluded that—even if NCMEC was a government actor—NCMEC’s search did not exceed the scope of AOL’s search in a “constitutionally significant” way. See id. at *8–10. Following the denial, Ackerman pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress."
"
The court concluded that neither AOL nor NCMEC were government actors."
It was interesting though that on appeal this decision was reversed:
"
On appeal, we reversed and held that NCMEC is a government actor and NCMEC conducted a search."."
However although he won that it was ruled that the held that NCMEC was an agency but had good-faith exception, so its rather pointless and makes no difference to the situation, which is still su?
If you look at the base of the judgement though which is a common denominator.
"This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 26, 2020Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court"
Lichtenberger, 786 F.3d at 483-8 is a case from 2015.
The USA v Miller was only filed and decided in December 2020, so there the 4th has clearly had a different opinion
I am disagreeing with these two statements:
"However the 4th Amendment interpretation is rather different to how it was envisaged when it was created, and where the USA and no doubt other countries have found a way to circumvent privacy laws, so they can shout from the rooftop about safeguarding privacy, whilst driving a coach and horses through it, FOR ANY PURPOSE, so its not about child abuse."
"With regards to the USA they are doing this because the 4th Amendment after Court rulings decided that you can circumvent the privacy enshrined in the 4th Amendment because they deem it ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT ACTION BUT DOES NOT CONSTRAIN PRIVATE PARTIES"
The 4th amendment was envisaged to only apply to the federal government in 1791.
The 4th amendment was envisaged to not apply to private companies, both in 1791 and in 2021. Nothing has changed.
No court rulings can have decided that the 4th amendment only applies to government actions since it has been that way since 1791.
No court rulings can have decided that the 4th amendment doesn't constrain private parties (including private search) since it has been that way since 1791.
At best these court cases can only have confirmed a long standing practise.
The cases you refer to have dealt with the issue of how much search a government party can do after a private search before needing a search warrant.
NCMEC was considered a government agent in United States vs. Ackerman.
Hans. First of all thanks for mentioning the United States vs. Ackerman as it is useful.
If anything it assists my 'the 4th Amendment interpretation is rather different to how it was envisaged when it was created" which is correct.
As in most law interpretation changes and with technological change its not surprising.
One of the first cases suggesting that "A search or seizure carried out by a private individual, even if it is unreasonable, DOES NOT implicate the Fourth Amendment" United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).
Which is in line with my comments.
Then we have the milestone:
"The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures proscribes only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable “to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.”
Walter v. United States, 477 U.S. 649, 662 (1980)."
PRIVATE CITIZEN OR GOVERNMENT AGENT?
Although a wrongful search or seizure conducted by a private party does not violate the fourth amendment, a private citizen’s actions may in some instances be considered state action.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487 (1971).
GENERAL PRINCIPLE:
Determining the existence of an agency relationship between the Government and the private party conducting the search turns on the degree of the Government’s involvement in the private party’s activities. This is done on a case-by-case basis, viewing the totality of circumstances.
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 614-15 (1989).
So you see the 4th has had to evolve.
However, what is interesting in the case you raised, was this contrary to the USA v Miller case
When a Google employee views a digital file and confirms that it is child pornography, Google assigns the file a hash value (digital fingerprint). It then scans Gmail for files with the same value. Google learned that a Gmail account had uploaded files with hash values matching child pornography...
law.justia.com
The USA v Miller case is stated to have been decided and filed 3 December 2020
A private party who searches a physical space and hands over paper files to the government has not violated the Fourth Amendment. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 475 (1921). That rule covers Google’s scan of virtual spaces and disclosure of digital files.
In that case United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 119 (1984) was cited and indeed even the United States v Ackerman, the case you mention.
What's interesting in the Miller case also is it mentions "2. Did Google act under compulsion, meaning if it did it would be then treated as if it were a government act Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004; see Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 170–71 (1970).
The Miller case specifically mentions NCMEC and hashes:
"But the Fourth Amendment restricts government, not private, action."
"Miller argues that these activities create a nexus with the government because he asks us to treat NCMEC, a private entity, as a government actor. The Tenth Circuit viewed NCMEC in that light. Ackerman, 831 F.3d at 1295–1300. "
Now for a crucial part of your Ackerman case, which ironically makes all of it a moot point because of the following:
"The court also ruled that even if the government violated Ackerman’s Fourth Amendment rights, suppression of evidence was unwarranted due to the good faith exception"
So basically the 4th amendment means very little now in terms of safeguarding privacy, as even ruling a party is private traditionally outside the scope of 4th Amendment, the Good Faith exception is used anyway!
So even if NCMEC are agreed to be a government actor, they've just used a good faith exception instead.
So its actually an irrelevance to the Apple case, because originally the argument always appeared to be whether
No. 18-5578United States v. MillerPage 3government has not violated the Fourth Amendment. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 475 (1921). That rule covers Google’s scan of virtual spaces and disclosure of digital files.
Just had a 40 minute power cut so I hope the post is ok.
Privacy wise, it would appear to some now you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, and why I am so vehemently against Apple introducing Software on our hardware rather than via the cloud.
It would appear thus far that these type of cases seem to be about data passing to ISP's or similar, not interrogating what is on your own hardware, which in my opinion is a slippery slippery slope.
I note too massive variation in statistics on the reliability of hashes, but where for me its got nothing to do with hashes, nothing to do with child abuse, but everything about Apple introducing surveillance on hardware, as if tools for the hash are on your hardware as others have described it, its a backdoor, open to all sorts of abuse.
