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

201–210 of 609 posts

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

#201

Post by bambax »

peaslock wrote: post #129
wormer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anti-trust laws are enforced by the state, which is a legitimate concentration of power.

Unfortunately the state has dropped the ball about anti-trust, thanks to stupid economic theories from the Chicago School of Dumbfuckery. Those are the main culprits for the shit we're in.

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

#206

Post by JulianMorrison »

Reporting the images to law enforcement is good. There should be a human in the loop to separate medical images from exploitative ones.

Perma-deleting his account on an automated accusation is bad. That should hinge on, at minimum, law enforcement's decision to charge a crime. [Edit: unless the criminality of the images is obvious - again, a human needs to be in the loop.]

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

#208

Post by petee »

mulmen wrote: post #79
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.

Quoted post unavailable.

No, ive never heard of film :|

Briefly glimpsing a negative, and being forced to make an enlargment and checking the print quality, are two different things.

And obviously you can't prohibit viewing a negative you haven't seen yet...thus prohibiting the printing.

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

#209

Post by kergonath »

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.

> This would mean that elderly people are also excluded from these services.

Having helped my 92 years old grandmother sorting out her tax returns on the government’s website, I can confirm that this is exactly what it means. And it’s the only practical way of communicating with the administration. Most local branches have been closed to the public, and the phone lines are congested all day (and cut you off after one hour waiting, which is always fun).

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

#210

Post by bart_spoon »

mulmen wrote: post #29
hosteur wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you not print naked adults?

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.

You say that as if there is no other reason to ban alcohol than religious belief, and not like alcohol being one of the most negative societal influences in the areas of human health, crime, public safety, and poverty. Just because humans are so cripplingly addicted to alcohol that banning was untenable doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.
Post reply on HN