[aiforecastthway]

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...)

[freejazz]

>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?

[aiforecastthway]

> Just go to a law library.

The closest with a copy of the Federal Appendix is ~2 hrs away from me (or on LN if I pay for a subscription). It should be free and online, because it probably can't be copyrighted and because simplifying public access to the law is an unambiguous public good.

> Do you know that judges routinely make decisions based on confidential documents not in the public record? Is that also bad?

Of course not; the particularities of a given case is a very different concern from a document whose content is critical to interpretation of precedent. Also, the copyright claims on confidential documents might be valid, whereas any copyright claims on cases in the Federal Appendix probably aren't valid; see how of the government edicts doctrine was applied in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org.

[freejazz]

Facts are incredibly relevant to the meaning of a case's holding. The issue with confidential documents isn't their copyrightibility.

[kyleee]

We can’t access appendix 29? Is that what you are saying?