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

221–230 of 609 posts

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

#221

Post by scarface74 »

chasil wrote: post #35
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…

The article mentions two independent instances of this process within Google, where appeal is not possible even with a police report that completely exonerates the suspect. It sounds to me as if a class action lawsuit is the most appropriate remedy for the unfortunates who are caught in this predicament. Their only problem is finding each other. For the rest of us, it is unwise to use cloud storage for photos, for se…

It’s unwise to depend on Google with decades of history of poor customer service.

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

#222

Post by pas »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #206

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.]

> Reporting the images to law enforcement is good.

citation needed.

do these CSAM scanning things actually help reduce kid exploitation?

and if they do, is this the best use of our resources?

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

#223

Post by [deleted] »

bart_spoon wrote: post #210
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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#224

Post by tomohawk »

neurostimulant wrote: post #205

My wife is a doctor and received a few of these kind of images in whatsapp from her patients from time to time. Should she be concerned?

Perhaps switch to signal or telegram? Some service that guarantees confidentiality.

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

#225

Post by mindslight »

prox wrote: post #97
deepdriver wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signals 'something not desirable.'" --George Orwell

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?

At least to me, it seems quite appropriate to characterize the autocratic merging of government and corporate power as "fascism". Yes, it's missing some specific trappings of the original fascists, but definitions adapt and widen over time.

In fascism 1.0, singular authority vested with the head of government who then subjugated every other institution under the government. In fascism 2.0, power consolidates from the bottom up as corporations weave themselves into our individual lives, merge and collude with each other, and expand their scope in a way that subsumes existing institutions including the existing government.

It's not the same, but it rhymes. Each version seems to be heading towards a similar end state, but coming at it from a different direction. The distinction seems to be the same distinction as between totalitarianism and inverted totalitarianism. Maybe we should call it inverted fascism?

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

#226

Post by scarface74 »

vgatherps wrote: post #63
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…

What's the incentive for Google to EVER give the accounts back? If they wrongly deactivate an account (like here), you get a bad article, EFF and friends ruminate about your behavior, and the world mostly moves on. If Google wrongly gives an account back, you get a different article: "Google helped child pornographer even after discovering CP in their account". Now that gets attention. That's a scandal that leads to…

Google is not anything like a “utility”. A utility has a natural monopoly because of the effort, expense and disruption that is required to lay down the infrastructure and the need for scale. There is no product that Google has that you can’t and shouldn’t pay for a competitors product.

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

#227

Post by pas »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #169

> subsequent review of his account turned up a video from six months earlier that Google also considered problematic, of a young child lying in bed with an unclothed woman. Isn’t that also a description of breastfeeding?

or, probably millions of families with a small kid. not everybody sleeps in pajamas.

also, while we might find it unwise to make a video, but also we were not there.

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

#228

Post by mulmen »

bart_spoon wrote: post #210
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.

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.

Prohibition didn’t work. Everyone who wanted to kept drinking. Religious guilt is an ineffective motivator of change.

Source: human history.

It’s time to move on.

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

#229

Post by vgatherps »

soraminazuki wrote: post #161
vgatherps wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the incentive for Google to EVER give the accounts back? If they wrongly deactivate an account (like here), you get a bad article, EFF and friends ruminate about your behavior, and the world mostly moves on. If Google wrongly gives an account back, you get a different article: "Google helped child pornographer even after discovering CP in their account". Now that gets attention. That's a scandal that leads to…

In what world would Google receive criticism for giving back accounts to people who has been proven innocent ? Google's surveillance system and automated ban hammers are already bad enough. But the actions they took following the ban in this case is egregious and 100% indefensible. At the very least, Google could've reinstated their victim's account and issued a full sincere apology upon being contacted by the NYT. I…

I edited my comment on this point and largely I agree, but as far as anyone in Google's position is concerned:

1. This is a rare edge case with asymmetric risk and an easy way to avoid said

2. A single failure could be catastrophic

3. No process is perfect especially in the face of someone actively trying to thwart it

You could try really hard to make sure it's not attackable and pray, for little benefit to Google. Or just tell people "too bad, you're on your own".

Even if this processes was assuredly bulletproof,

> In what world would Google receive criticism for giving back accounts to people who has been proven innocent?

The sort of drivel/clickbait that gets published to 'make a good story' is astounding. Or politicians, not known for honesty, could totally play this up if their base has an axe to grind against Google.

No giant corporation (especially publicly traded) is going to take such risks to revive a few wrongfully terminated email/photo accounts unless they have an obligation to (i.e. should Google be a utility). Their responsibilities aren't to be nice, or act in a good way, but to protect their profits. To the extent that I've seen corporations 'act nice' it's largely been to benefit their own employees or pursue some pet cause of an executive.

Post reply on HN