objective reasonable expectations of privacy and may no findings about the national center for missing and exploited children's expansion upon the searches made by google  she finished making your points i just want to get to whether stevenson controls this google or whether you have proposed weighted distinguish it or superseded i think here maybe you're arguing that we should take up a chattels analysis that wasn't government agency test st whether or not the government knew or acquiesced and then secondly escalating involvement by by the electronic service provider here both of those cases  whatever reason as uncategorized did they i put that into him i don't know the district court as clear as the district court could be and that's reason i'm asking they had to meet the hash mash to begin with right but then that the files are forwarded on mass to the national center which conducts its own review and then regardless of its findings forwards them again on mass on to law enforcement ok so back up one second what the district and need to the national center the numbers are quite clear they have four bottles that match that are classified as a parent child pornography and one thousand two hundred and twelve better have it work better not categorized and children do x plus y the district court fixated on the fact that when these files alternately arrived at law enforcement the investigator with the state patrol and anyone that interviewed that original initially made their way to the people in nebraska with a search warrant is an abundant probable cause that is sufficient to support goulard even if the knickknack searching happened it was i permissible google had private these folks and directly forwarded to cutting the national center out of the equation it had contacted law enforcement and said  national center statutorily is this pseudo government agency which is which is named as the national clearinghouse for child pornography google has does require just to forward the matter to this government agency and there regardless of what google suspects is on its servers when it tenders the files the national center the national center conducts the search that is more expensive than google does which is a separate for the ask before maybe not clearly enough if we assume for the sake of this d discussion promote good google was probably i know that's not your position but his or his take for the sake of analysis here why isn't the  e sufficiently based on google searches such that suppression is not warranted even if you're right about numeric conducting impermissible searches  did we have a situation where nick mcnally passed along for hash value matches what they assert to be child pornography i don't believe that that's enough to get a warrant to search someone's home yes no and and maybe in many when they say yes it is unclear whether that is a represents to the house side technology or human eyes being placed on it regardless of whether it's by or a google analyst looking at it by the time the information reached the national center we have reports saying for a parent child pornography one thousand two hundred and twelve  center when two people categorize those images as a parent child pornography there are four and with whether they were the manually review board now it's unclear from the record nobody from google williams attractive i think what about if i may what about the argument that stevenson is distinguishable because the record here shows more of a relationship i guess between google and the government wanted to remove all of this material out there for a platform day if they have any private business interest users don't like to use a site that they consider to be a haven for this type of material they want to remove that and it takes time because there are a large number and if you have an individual manually reviewing that's going to take time but separately i fear i'll break up is conducting current investigation and i think it's clear that they didn't work together based on the warrant which they've been requested the contents of hired and reviewed it all themselves so there was no reason for them to ask google to continue to manually look through this the fact that they identified these other e mail addresses that on you know because my tiny input think something to the fact i reviewed the images and therefore that must mean all and not only the ones that have been indicated as as  having been with if they reviewed i don't think there's a basis for jumping to that conclusion i think that's inputting information that was not in the record when the only information in the record is next mike saying that they cannot review images that haven't been previously or guess finally i think that even even if this court were to conclude that google or mathematica conducted an improper search that google is acting as a government agent or that next somehow expanded on them valid relied upon i think that it's it's also clear that the good faith exception would apply have this case investigator alberich i was very careful to include in proper conditions for search warrant that she had reviewed only what  this very specific google i have not reviewed off the state of specifically when she received reports were not reviewed them at that time at all and that she didn't review them i think that that the statement of you know the an opinion that google would be acting as anything other than a private agent in that search and that next mag that she could not expand on google search and that was i think that was a very clear affidavit that that's what she was doing so i think again kind of regardless of everything else the wives in this case i think that does come out of conviction in the senate should stand based on the good faith exception in addition to the other here some of them are clear to me that i was not saying i didn't review some of them i looked at six hundred and eighty five of them there's a statement being made that those files have now been reviewed by the national center and then on the front page on you you probably can see this but it has after the word had been issued is this point immaterial national center seeding this information this didn't put these files from google which has conducted their cursory how shall i review or at a minimum not provide the national center with the information it needs to conduct its announced nonetheless they review everything and what nick make notes as it's reviewing everything is only what google has provided it which is we have we have uploaded these files of these