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

A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 199 posts

Re: A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

#171

Post by ssss11 »

hellfish wrote: post #87

> After setting up a Gmail account in the mid-aughts, Mark, who is in his 40s, came to rely heavily on Google. He synced appointments with his wife on Google Calendar. His Android smartphone camera backed up his photos and videos to the Google cloud. He even had a phone plan with Google Fi. His first mistake. He (and a whole bunch of others) forgot the principle of least privilege. The moment you start letting a comp…

Sadly I think everyone in the 00’s incorrectly assumed these companies having custody of our data didn’t equal them monitoring the data.

The time has long passed since we should have left Google services if we care at all about privacy.

Re: A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

#172

Post by Ptchd »

pvg wrote: post #168
Ptchd wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if they modify the article after you post a link to it?

People notice that. Archive links remove important info from the post, this is a pretty well-settled HN thing with lots of moderator commentary if you want an infinite supply of reasoning.

> People notice that.

How many? Like 1 percent of people?

> Archive links remove important info from the post

What type of information?

Re: A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

#173

Post by dang »

Ptchd wrote: post #155
dang wrote: post #131

Please don't post archive.org links when the original URL works or there's a good alternate source available. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

It's to avoid pay walls....

skissane is correct—archive links are welcome in the thread, but it's important that the submission be the original source.

"Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

#174

Post by lamontcg »

Alupis wrote: post #164
lamontcg wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So why would you not pursue legal action? Hassle. Some people would prefer to just have a clean break from any abusive relationship rather than continue to engage in conflict, even if the odds are good they'd win. You also don't know what else is going on in his life and how much bandwidth he has left. One terminally sick relative is all it'll take for the average person to not want to deal with extra bullshit in t…

The guy has gone through multiple police investigations - one of which appears to have been voluntary - plus this investigative article piece here. I'd say, from appearances, he's not shied away from attempting to fight this. He even stated in the article it was the money that made him choose not to pursue the legal path (although as previously pointed out, the costs would be free if he prevailed and there's free rep…

He went through multiple police investigations to clear his name of criminal wrongdoing, which has much higher stakes.

If he sues he's likely getting a pittance from whatever the court values his Google account to be worth. In reality this is never going to be a multi-million dollar award.

And I don't know what it is that you imagine he's done wrong which isn't criminal but which would allow Google to defend themselves. If it is anything I think it is more likely that he got legal advice that based on Google's TOS and the things that he agreed to (like we all do every time a legal notice pops up) that his chances of recovering any damages at all were a crapshoot.

Re: A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

#175

Post by pvg »

Ptchd wrote: post #172
pvg wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People notice that. Archive links remove important info from the post, this is a pretty well-settled HN thing with lots of moderator commentary if you want an infinite supply of reasoning.

> People notice that. How many? Like 1 percent of people? > Archive links remove important info from the post What type of information?

How many? Like 1 percent of people?

You're asking me for stats about a statistically non-existent problem you made up. How many article get changed after they get posted and this isn't brought up in the comments?

Also, sometimes articles get changed because authors respond to HN feedback. Interaction between authors and the community is one of the valuable things about the forum. There's no added value to discussing some frozen snapshot of a web page - its a web forum for talking about web links rather than some revision control system.

What type of information?

The domain, for one thing.

Re: A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

#176

Post by Ptchd »

pvg wrote: post #175
Ptchd wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People notice that. How many? Like 1 percent of people? > Archive links remove important info from the post What type of information?

How many? Like 1 percent of people? You're asking me for stats about a statistically non-existent problem you made up. How many article get changed after they get posted and this isn't brought up in the comments? Also, sometimes articles get changed because authors respond to HN feedback. Interaction between authors and the community is one of the valuable things about the forum. There's no added value to discussing…

> You're asking me for stats about a statistically non-existent problem you made up.

You are the one that said that people actually notice that... I was trying to find out where you got that from.

> The domain, for one thing.

you can get the domain name from the archived page...

Are you an HN admin trying to defend strange policies?

Re: A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

#177

Post by pohuing »

b112 wrote: post #128
pohuing wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use android phones without a Google account right

But you'd lose all content you paid for. Apps, games, movies, books, youtube paid things, etc.

Hmm true, apart from apps those are all available outside of android so I didn't really consider it.

But that's why I back up my media in the first place, Google can't steal my epub of the book I bought, nor can audible steal the m4a of the audiobook I bought.

Re: A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

#178

Post by pvg »

Ptchd wrote: post #176
pvg wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many? Like 1 percent of people? You're asking me for stats about a statistically non-existent problem you made up. How many article get changed after they get posted and this isn't brought up in the comments? Also, sometimes articles get changed because authors respond to HN feedback. Interaction between authors and the community is one of the valuable things about the forum. There's no added value to discussing…

> You're asking me for stats about a statistically non-existent problem you made up. You are the one that said that people actually notice that... I was trying to find out where you got that from. > The domain, for one thing. you can get the domain name from the archived page... Are you an HN admin trying to defend strange policies?

You are the one that said that people actually notice that... I was trying to find out where you got that from.

No, you said 'what if the page changes' which is not really a thing and when it's a thing, it's a totally normal thing. It's a non-problem that I got from your comment.

you can get the domain name from the archived page...

You can also get the archived page from the archived page, if you prefer the archived page.

Are you an HN admin trying to defend strange policies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNnIbFFzpD8&t=9s

Re: A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

#179

Post by skissane »

Ptchd wrote: post #176
pvg wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many? Like 1 percent of people? You're asking me for stats about a statistically non-existent problem you made up. How many article get changed after they get posted and this isn't brought up in the comments? Also, sometimes articles get changed because authors respond to HN feedback. Interaction between authors and the community is one of the valuable things about the forum. There's no added value to discussing…

> You're asking me for stats about a statistically non-existent problem you made up. You are the one that said that people actually notice that... I was trying to find out where you got that from. > The domain, for one thing. you can get the domain name from the archived page... Are you an HN admin trying to defend strange policies?

> you can get the domain name from the archived page...

Posting an archive link breaks the feature which lets you view submissions by site: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=nytimes.com

Re: A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal

#180

Post by annoyingnoob »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #109
annoyingnoob wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what software as law looks like. The software actually found one or more pictures of a nude child and banned the account - the software worked exactly as intended. As humans we can see the issue here, the software cannot see or understand the issue. Google is not about to start carving exceptions out of its government mandated or coerced scanning feature, it can only follow the rule that any nudity involving…

Expect that the software did not work as intended . It’s intended to identify child sexual abuse material and this was not that.

This is one group that Google works with: https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/csam

Their definition and yours are not exactly the same. If you read what they have to say, you'll see that the issues are more broad than whatever you personally call abuse, and those issues include exploitation and distribution of images that victims find harmful. Are you a victim of abuse or exploitation? Who are you to determine what a victim finds abusive or exploitative?

I'm not saying I agree with this situation, just that I can see how it happened and why Google won't do anything in this case.

Post reply on HN