Hacker News Reader

Comment by miki123211 | Hacker News Reader

In the US, are Google queries about the law considered attorney-client privilege? What about library records? Browser history? Google Maps / Uber / car travel history (when traveling to an attorney's office)?

If somebody Googles "best attorney for murder NYC" a day after a murder is committed but before any case is filed against them (so they clearly had some reason to expect that case), could that be used as evidence?

View on HN

I'm not sure if you were actually asking the question but regardless the answer is that all of those absolutely can and are regularly used as evidence

Parent comment was asking about attorney-client privilege which means there's an attorney in the communication loop. If the person using a tool is an attorney, then that communication should be protected whether it's by pen or keyboard. But this is an active area of legislation and jurisprudence in relation to AI. I expect some important cases will happen

> If the person using a tool is an attorney, then that communication should be protected whether it's by pen or keyboard.

But the tool is not your attorney, so it can't be the originator of attorney-client privilege. The situation is no different than if you get informal legal advice from a friend: even if that friend is an attorney, the communication is unprivileged unless it's part of a formal representation.

What if a user puts an email from their attorney into chatgpt so they can ask questions about it to better understand it? Surely the email would still be covered but maybe the questions and answers wouldn't be?

Or what if your phone automatically generates a summary of your attorneys text message, would that be covered?

Just because they have a lawyer does not mean things like their browser history and every other example in the comment I replied to would not be permitted as evidence...

Except for something like specifically looking up a lawyer

Generally seeking counsel for a crime you may end up being accused of isn't going to be admissible as evidence. The "if he's so innocent, why did he hire an attorney" isn't something that judges tend to allow to play out in a courtroom.

Google queries aren’t privileged. (An attorney’s Google queries are probably work product protected, though I’m not sure anyone has tried.) Your Uber travel history isn’t protected: the privilege applies only to communications.

Google queries are used to prosecute people all the time. It’s actually hilarious. Criminals regularly Google incriminating stuff about criming.

Hans Reisee rather infamously checked out a book from the library about how to kill someone and hide the evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com