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

191–199 of 199 posts

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

#191

Post by hodgesrm »

dorgo wrote: post #182
cypress66 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people use gcp, I would like to hear some opinions. The way I see it, if you don't mind price, you go with AWS (most polished). If you mind price gcp isn't really much cheaper, so you go with something actually cheap like OCI.

afaik there is no alternative to BigQuery on AWS? All alternatives are less managed and require more administration. But I never looked too closely.

Snowflake. It does not work internally the same way as BigQuery but is substantially equivalent in user-visible functionality.

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

#192

Post by googlryas »

29083011397778 wrote: post #188
googlryas wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It contained a letter informing him that he had been investigated as well as copies of the search warrants served on Google and his internet service provider. An investigator, whose contact information was provided, had asked for everything in Mark’s Google account: his internet searches, his location history, his messages and any document, photo and video he’d stored with the company. > * The search, related to “c…

You man the search into his account by the San Fransisco PD ? Who later cleared him of any wrongdoing? Note that Google, after hearing from the police, stood by their choice as well.

Right. Google never said you get to keep your account unless you do something illegal. Which is why the terms of service are there.

I just want to know the context of that search that he made. It could very well be disqualifying, or it could be totally benign.

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

#193

Post by Alupis »

lamontcg wrote: post #174
Alupis wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 themselv…

We don't need to speculate - the article discusses his legal options. He explicitly chose not to pursue it for what he claims was the cost.

There is no multi-million dollar award - this isn't a TV Show or something.

Arbitration would determine, after examining all facts presented by both parties, if his account should be re-instated. Further, if his account is ordered to be re-instated, he would be awarded "reasonable attorney's fees", which would cover the cost of any legal representation he hired to argue his case.

So yes, he needed to pursue the legal path here, but chose not to. The quoted dollar amount in the article is peanuts, and like previously stated over and over, if he's so certain of his innocence and has all this supporting evidence, arbitration would ultimately cost nothing. ie. there's no reason to not pursue the legal path here.

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

#194

Post by 867-5309 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #122
867-5309 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Protecting children is important. AI is imperfect. is protecting children more important than a software engineer with no backup's mistakes and first world inconveniences? yes. the AI did its job flawlessly - detected a naked toddler. as did the human verifier. bravo. should it have been detected and flagged? yes. should we be surprised at the chosen free cloud provider's attitude or dismissal? no.

CSAM stands for Child Sexual Abuse Material. It was not CSAM, quite the opposite actually.

thanks. so CSAs have no interest in pictures of naked toddlers..

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

#195

Post by pyuser583 »

411111111111111 wrote: post #186
csande17 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have your own domain, Fastmail banning you is a minor speed bump at worst. You can just point your domain at a different email provider. You can similarly transfer domains between registrars if one of them doesn't like you. And in practice, your domain registrar not liking you is pretty rare; I've only heard of it happening with famously evil alt-right websites and they generally manage to find a registrar tha…

> You can similarly transfer domains between registrars if one of them doesn't like you. That's sadly not true. There are various examples of individuals loosing their domains as registrar's refuse to release them. The transfer only works if both registers play ball, so it's essentially a very similar situation.

Yep. I’ve seen this happen.

A registrar revoked the domain, we tried to transfer.

The registrar required email verification of who we are, but for obvious reasons email wasn’t working.

Fun times.

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

#196

Post by Alupis »

josephcsible wrote: post #33
Alupis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be worth remembering we only have one side of the story here. How do we know we can thoroughly trust the Dad any more than we can thoroughly trust Google? Perhaps there are more pictures Dad took the article doesn't know about? Perhaps Google can't verify it was indeed Dad's child in the images? Perhaps there is more to the story than what the article lets on...perhaps not. We will never really know.

The police investigated and verified that Google's accusations were completely false. Also: > we only have one side of the story here In real court, if you don't show up to tell your side of the story, you're considered to be in the wrong by default. Why should the court of public opinion be any different, when Google has had the chance to tell their side but chose not to?

Frankly, the "court of public opinion" is the only court where facts don't matter, only opinion. This is a clear legal issue, and you will never hear the actual outcome.

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

#197

Post by josephcsible »

googlryas wrote: post #192
29083011397778 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You man the search into his account by the San Fransisco PD ? Who later cleared him of any wrongdoing? Note that Google, after hearing from the police, stood by their choice as well.

Right. Google never said you get to keep your account unless you do something illegal. Which is why the terms of service are there. I just want to know the context of that search that he made. It could very well be disqualifying, or it could be totally benign.

> Google never said you get to keep your account unless you do something illegal.

The point is that Google should have to say that, just like your water and electricity companies can't arbitrarily decide to stop serving you.

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

#198

Post by warbler73 »

Alupis wrote: post #193
lamontcg wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 themselv…

We don't need to speculate - the article discusses his legal options. He explicitly chose not to pursue it for what he claims was the cost. There is no multi-million dollar award - this isn't a TV Show or something. Arbitration would determine, after examining all facts presented by both parties, if his account should be re-instated. Further, if his account is ordered to be re-instated, he would be awarded "reasonabl…

> if he's so certain of his innocence and has all this supporting evidence

The claim is that he is a child pornographer and has taken sexually explicit photos of children for prurient purposes. There is no evidence of this and if Google had it they should report the evidence.

You instead keep repeating things like "if he's so certain of his innocence and has all this supporting evidence...", implying that since he is not suing Google that there must be something to this.

Your shtick here reminds me of Musk's accusations of pedophilia against Vernon Unsworth.

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

#199

Post by 29083011397778 »

googlryas wrote: post #192
29083011397778 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You man the search into his account by the San Fransisco PD ? Who later cleared him of any wrongdoing? Note that Google, after hearing from the police, stood by their choice as well.

Right. Google never said you get to keep your account unless you do something illegal. Which is why the terms of service are there. I just want to know the context of that search that he made. It could very well be disqualifying, or it could be totally benign.

I strongly suspect we're talking past each other. The man under investigation didn't make "a search" that Google deemed unsavoury. The police department conducted a search of his account, looking for any additional examples of child pornography or abuse. You're confusing who actually performed the search (SFPD, not Mark), as well as what the search was for (searching through Mark's Google account photos, documents, and more, not Mark making a Google search).
Post reply on HN