Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

81–90 of 609 posts

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

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to fascism. A private company is the de-facto judge, jury and executioner because it owns half the infrastructure you live your life on.

And you can’t even escape these companies by moving to another country. They have their tendrils everywhere, except in places that consciously prevent them - which is usually done by even worse tyrannies like China/Russia. Always makes me laugh when I see employees of Google, Amazon etc. claiming to be “anti-fascist” and “standing in solidarity with the common man” etc etc…

>claiming to be “anti-fascist”

I can't fault them too badly for that. I consider myself personally against the horrors that go into gathering the constituent materials for, and the assembly of, computers. This position co-exists with the fact that I, like most others here, derive the majority of my livelihood from Doing Things With Computers, which wouldn't be possible without the computers themselves, which wouldn't be possible without the horrors.

Worse still, I live a provably better life than those of my peers whose youth did not, for whatever reason, revolve around Doing Things With Computers, let alone the far-flung people whose labour provides me with the computers on which I do those profitable things.

It's difficult to morally reason about.

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

#82
post #29
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.

I'm an atheist, and I intensely disagree with the sexualisation of everything in our society dressed as a new sexual revolution, and see it as a direct effect of capitalism.

What say you

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

#83
> “I decided it was probably not worth $7,000,” he said.

lol. Missing 4 zeros there.

Part of the reason for the brazen actions of companies like Google is that their substantial financial means and legal department sizes grant them a substantial degree of immunity to judicial review.

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

#84

> 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…

Welcome to fascism. A private company is the de-facto judge, jury and executioner because it owns half the infrastructure you live your life on.

Nope, the final call was made by NCMEC. The article is a bad one, didn't highlight how the process works. And it's a federal law that google is obliged to follow.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...

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

#85
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.

As much as the evangelicals of America screw with the rest of the world in their quest for purity, the better answer seems to be: How do you know those nudes are taken consensually? And what's your liability for developing ("reproducing") them?

[deleted]

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

#86
post #66

> 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 do you think is the ratio of innocent to nefarious pictures of naked children Google encounters in aggregate? This is relevant to how outraged one should be by this story. I think it is probably > 1:100000. As such, probably not much outrage is warranted, although it’s obviously not great for this one guy.

Wow, I'd guess the opposite when we consider the base rate. Seems like a classic Bayesian problem.

It's fairly normal for parents to take pictures of their children naked in the bathtub/at the beach/ camping/etc.

Conversely, I'd expect actual pedophiles and CSAM producers to be really quite rare.

So even a relatively low base-rate of normal parents with normal nude photos would likely dwarf CSAM upon detection.

So, if we say 1/100 are pedophiles, and 30/100 are parents, and of the parents 10% have such photos, the ratio I'd expect without getting into detection rates is like 3:1 in favor of normal parents.

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

#87

> 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…

Employees of this office are very small and delicate, deserve protection from local pervs. Better a thousand innocent men are locked up than one guilty man roam free.

— Dwight K. Schrute

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

#88
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.

I'm an atheist, and I intensely disagree with the sexualisation of everything in our society dressed as a new sexual revolution, and see it as a direct effect of capitalism. What say you

[deleted]

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

#89

> 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…

If due process was followed, and the police / state exonerated the parents, I don’t think anyone would blame Google for reactivating the accounts. They’d blame the police or whatever flawed exoneration process was used.

At least, that’s what I’d hope.

Google here looks even worse than I thought possible, and I’m a de-Googled, anti-fan, so I already had a very dim view of them.

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

#90
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.

As much as the evangelicals of America screw with the rest of the world in their quest for purity, the better answer seems to be: How do you know those nudes are taken consensually? And what's your liability for developing ("reproducing") them?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN