Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

theregister.co.uk

171–172 of 172 posts

Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

#171

Post by ShabbyDoo » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 4:43 PM UTC

TeHCrAzY wrote: post #152

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked for a company that routinely provided user-uploaded child porn to the FBI along with user details. The EULA gave us the right to do this although I'm not sure how explicitly this was stated. I'm ok with this, but it's a slippery slope downward.

Thats interesting. How do you avoid the liability of possessing child pornography? Invariablly, someone needs to see it before it can be passed on, and it has to be stored somewhere + communicated. Is there protections in your local laws?

We off-shored the manual review of submitted images! And, it was perceived by management/legal that proactive cooperation with the FBI would alleviate the risk of being charged with distribution of child pornography. As someone peripherally involved, I had to sign a release stating that I would not claim harassment because my job involved viewing sexually explicit images.

Never in my life had I imagined writing an email to a VP stating that I had just burned a CD of kiddie porn for her only to receive a terse "Thanks!" message back. We did this on a dedicated machine which could easily be wiped/re-imaged.

Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

#172

Post by TeHCrAzY » Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 11:40 PM UTC

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #171

TeHCrAzY wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats interesting. How do you avoid the liability of possessing child pornography? Invariablly, someone needs to see it before it can be passed on, and it has to be stored somewhere + communicated. Is there protections in your local laws?

We off-shored the manual review of submitted images! And, it was perceived by management/legal that proactive cooperation with the FBI would alleviate the risk of being charged with distribution of child pornography. As someone peripherally involved, I had to sign a release stating that I would not claim harassment because my job involved viewing sexually explicit images. Never in my life had I imagined writing an em…

Sounds like very shakey ground. I would quite vigourously avoid pissing anyone off who has proof you (or anyone else for that matter) was directly involved with these materials. Literal interpretation of the law could see you registered as a sex offender + jail time. What a rediculous concept :/

Post reply on HN