Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 609 posts

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#121

Post by rendall »

mikece wrote: post #4

I worked in a 1 Hour Photo when I was in college. The standing rule we had is that any photos of naked adults were not printed (the customer was given their negatives though). In the case of naked children if it was the typical "kid taking their first bath" it was fine but if there was any doubt we had a manager review it. I think we had to call the cops a couple times (more for passing the buck than making an offici…

My dad as a teenager worked in one of these photo places with such a policy. Only, his boss printed all the naked pictures anyway and kept them.

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#122

Post by dessant »

blueflow wrote: post #108
dessant wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some cases Google can only be avoided at a potentially life altering personal cost. Consider how many government services use reCAPTCHA, and what it means to have no access or delayed access to these services.

I don't buy this. This would mean that elderly people are also excluded from these services.

Elderly and marginalized people do suffer because of restricted access to online services. People who cannot access the web and its services are at an obvious disadvantage in life, and that sometimes can have severe consequences.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32304320

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#124

Post by taylodl »

mike_hock wrote: post #20
soraminazuki wrote: post #15

> A Google spokeswoman said the company stands by its decisions, even though law enforcement cleared the two men. Wow. Just wow. This is worse than the usual Google's automated screw-ups. In this case, Google was notified of the issue by the NYT. Yet they actively chose to continue to screw over their victims just because they can. > In a statement, Google said, “Child sexual abuse material is abhorrent and we’re com…

Welcome to fascism. A private company is the de-facto judge, jury and executioner because it owns half the infrastructure you live your life on.

You misspelled libertarianism

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#125

Post by blueflow »

dessant wrote: post #122
blueflow wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this. This would mean that elderly people are also excluded from these services.

Elderly and marginalized people do suffer because of restricted access to online services. People who cannot access the web and its services are at an obvious disadvantage in life, and that sometimes can have severe consequences. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32304320

And this is legal in your place?

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#126

Post by dessant »

threeseed wrote: post #101
leereeves wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you (for example) apply for a job without the Internet?

Speak with recruiters. Most of the jobs I've worked for have come via old school phone calls.

Factory workers usually aren't snagged by headhunters, and many jobs around the world require online application.

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#127

Post by [deleted] »

tehbeard wrote: post #74
mulmen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puritans. We “banned” alcohol for 13 years. America’s greatest battle is with our dark religious past. We claim to be secular but really it’s an aspiration.

As much as the evangelicals of America screw with the rest of the world in their quest for purity, the better answer seems to be: How do you know those nudes are taken consensually? And what's your liability for developing ("reproducing") them?

[deleted]

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#128

Post by Gigachad »

MrDresden wrote: post #102

I keep telling anyone who will listen that they need to move every aspect of their online identity away from the big tech giants, and make sure that each type of service (email, webpage, memory storage, document storage, backups, contacts, etc) is compartmentalized in such a way that if one gets removed then it wont affect the others in any way. Imagine having all your memories in the form of images and videos taken…

This event happens so rarely that it would be better advice to tell people to wear a bullet proof vest and helmet when going outside. It’s more likely to benefit them than self hosting media.

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#129

Post by peaslock »

wormer wrote: post #116
prox wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah also think the word/concept fascism doesn’t fit here. While it is obviously oppressive or unjust, it is a company, so what would be a better fit?

It's literally capitalism. It's the system that Google was allowed to thrive in and become this powerful.

Power concentration is inevitable regardless of the system because in order to enforce decentralization you would need to, well, concentrate power.

Our best bet is to shame those using products of unethical companies.

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#130

Post by mulmen »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #110
petee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One example would be protecting employees from someone just bringing in photos of themselves with the sole intent of exposing themselves to the employee, as they have a captive audience.

This premise was in a Seinfeld episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Package_(Seinfeld) > Sheila, a clerk at the photo store, flirts with George when he picks up his photos, commenting on a mustard stain that appears in one. He photographs everything, even Jerry taking a screwdriver to his stereo, as an excuse to see her again. A lingerie model's picture is accidentally mixed in with George's photos; he assumes…

Please tell me there is a pseudo-logical-fallacy for inadvertently invoking a Seinfeld plot.
Post reply on HN