6 ms·

It's still problematic, even if the work was distasteful or even illegal. There was no process involved, no chance for appeal, no explanation of the charges tha

It's still problematic, even if the work was distasteful or even illegal. There was no process involved, no chance for appeal, no explanation of the charges that precipitated it. If it truly is illegal materials that violate laws, then deleting it is deleting evidence and helping cover up crimes. If it was art that borders on distasteful to some then google is deciding taste and public values with private algorithms. I'm not sure what the right thing is here. To require any publishing platform to retain works they decide violates their TOS seems like a big burden. But we live in a world where publishing seemingly requires the cooperation the private sector. If not google, at very least a hosting company of some kind. If we want the allow social norms to change we can't stifle everything that falls outside of the norm.

parineum 10y ago
But possession of child pornography is what's illegal. They very well may have reported the owner of the blog to the authorities but, in the mean time, google was both possessing and distributing the material. It's not that it's violating their TOS, it's that Google thought they may have been violating the law. EDIT: At least if that's what the content was.
- 67726e 10y ago
  Then suspend the blog, and allow for some process to deal with the situation. Don't just torch everything on some suspicion of something going wrong. This isn't a new issue for Google. They're notorious for fucking with people's accounts and providing no recourse or customer support. Something happens? Better hope your uncle works at Google or your shit out of luck. Hell, I've hosted most of my personal domains' email accounts via Google. A few months ago one of them was deleted. I never really used the email, but I certainly had things on their I would like to have for posterity. When Google deleted the account I was given no recourse or ability to appeal. It was just gone. It's not as if the account was even anything controversial, it was just my contact-me email for an old NES modding site I had.
  - awesomepantsm 10y ago
    >Don't just torch everything on some suspicion of something going wrong. You can rest assured, if it was child porn, they'd be obligued to keep backups as proof for law enforcement. I doubt the material is actually deleted, just hidden until they sort it out with the feds.
  - parent5446 10y ago
    I mean, who's to say that isn't the case. The blog might still exist on Google's side, and it's just been quarantined or otherwise looks like it's been deleted from the outside.
    - 67726e 10y ago
      The point is not the "soft delete" vs "hard delete" but their total lack of transparency or customer support. It doesn't matter to the end user the difference if all outward appearance is that the blog was deleted.
      - Sleaker 10y ago
        If there's any legal thing going on they wont be able to make any statements on it anyway...
        Karunamon 10y ago
        "Due to ongoing litigation we are unable to comment" would still be valuable in that case. Radio silence on the other hand, is not acceptable.
        tener 10y ago
        In some jurisdictions it is illegal to let your client know they are being secretely investigated. Such statement may interfere with the investigation - they may destroy the evidence etc.
- true_religion 10y ago
  From the OP who said: > "I've read a few of Cooper's books and the short answer is yes, pedophilia is a common theme in his writing (as is incest and necrophilia)." Because of the words 'book' and 'writing', I have the impression that everything there is written text and no certainly no pictures. This puts it in a nebulous position, at least in the USA. Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897), ended up ruling that text-only content can be deemed obscene and being text-only is not a reason to get total 1st amendment protection. However later cases, decided there was a division between erotica and obscene material, which is essentially decided on a case-by-case basis subjectively. When it comes to things such as obscenity, its not really enough to go by our 'feelings' and intuition on the matter. For instance, would you believe the US is a fully functioning, 1st world democracy, where sex toys are illegal (Alabama, upheld by State Supreme court and enforced as recently as 2009)? To me, personally, anything that comes entirely from someones fanciful imagination, no matter how distasteful, should not be considered illegal unless it directly results in the harm of another individual.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    So in the US (and Japan and only a handful of other countries), fictional depictions of under age or incestual content isn't illegal (per the court case you referenced above), so long as you're not using real people to act it out. This doesn't hold true for ... most of the rest of the planet. In the UK a man was put in jail for Simpsons porn, something that's legal in the US (although potentially a trademark violation; unless you can argue it's satire). In Cooper's home country of France, fictional depictions are actually illegal (books like Lolita are banned). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornograp... But as already stated, even if legality wasn't the issue, yes they are still a private company and can do what they want. The article mentions this and there really needs to be an effort to educate people that they need multiple backups, not just on-line, but on their own media.
    - true_religion 10y ago
      > So in the US (and Japan and only a handful of other countries), fictional depictions of under age or incestual content isn't illegal (per the court case you referenced above), so long as you're not using real people to act it out. Actually, visual incest pornography exists in the US. I am not sure why (I am within the industry, but I don't actually keep tabs on legalities that I'm not involved in), but it seems that 2 years ago VISA decided it was okay for it to take credit card payments for incest-fantasy sites, and since then there's been an explosion of mainstream studios supporting said material. Cynically speaking, it seems to me that the adult industry is more scared of how their merchant banks will react to their content, than any chance of being taken down by the US government.
- AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
  It is astounding to contemplate that it's possible to type a series of English words which would be illegal to _possess_! Even if I was the only one to know about these words and, for example, kept them in a safe.
madmax96 10y ago
The data resided on Google's servers -- their property. Read the terms and conditions you agree to, Google doesn't owe you anything. > If it was art that borders on distasteful to some > then google is deciding taste and public values with > private algorithms. But that's well within their right to do. If you don't like it, there's an easy solution: don't use Google. This behavior is well-known (remember Google Reader?) and expected out of Google. If you have any data on any cloud storage facility, you probably have no guarantee of its long-term persistence. You should regularly backup all your data that you value. You can get a 3 Terabyte backup drive today on Amazon for < $120, which is more than enough for most people to backup their valued data. > I'm not sure what the right thing is here. To require > any publishing platform to retain works they decide > violates their TOS seems like a big burden. But we > live in a world where publishing seemingly requires > the cooperation the private sector. If not google, at > very least a hosting company of some kind. If we want > the allow social norms to change we can't stifle > everything that falls outside of the norm. Agreed. But, there are alternatives to using a hosting company and there are ways outside of the internet to distribute information. Just because you have a right to publish does not imply that you have a right to be published, nor should it. The author was no customer of Google so the fact that so many people are upset is indicative of the growing technological entitlement mentality. Hosting isn't free, and Google was providing a gratis service to a user. For all we know, a government put pressure on Google to remove the blog -- do we really expect Google to spend money on a legal team to resist such a request? People either don't value the ability to express distasteful opinions, or they are completely unaware of these practices in modern technology companies.
- kennywinker 10y ago
  > the fact that so many people are upset is indicative of the growing technological entitlement mentality A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually all of their products. > You can get a 3 Terabyte backup drive today on Amazon The first words you see when you visit https://www.google.com/drive/ https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for all your files". > there are alternatives to using a hosting company Like what? Deeply technical p2p hosting solutions that are completely inaccessible to all but the most adept readers and publishers? > there are ways outside of the internet to distribute information Sure, but as we move most of our communication to the internet, this kind of thing becomes more and more problematic.
sliverstorm 10y ago
To require any publishing platform to retain works they decide violates their TOS seems like a big burden. But we live in a world where publishing seemingly requires the cooperation the private sector. Was it any different in the days of the printing press? Newspaper companies didn't have any requirement to keep around material they didn't want to print, and unless you wanted to build/buy and operate your own printing press, you depended on the private sector... Much like freedom of travel, while nobody can stop you, nobody must provide you a free platform either.
tremon 10y ago
I'm not sure what the right thing is here But I know. Either Google hosts a platform for other people to share their life, in which case Google should not have done anything without a warrant. Or Google owns the entire platform and all content, in which case they should be held liable for every bit of disputed content on their servers (including Youtube). There is no middle ground. Either you are a (de-facto) common carrier, or you're not.
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  If the customer violated Google's TOS, the terms he agreed to when signing up, he already agreed to having his stuff deleted.
mrcwinn 10y ago
Trust me, there was very much a process involved here. You just don't know it. And there was no removal of evidence - you can be sure everything is very well documented - just not on the public internet.
Spooky23 10y ago
It's a pure risk management problem. Child pornography is contraband. It's the virtual equivalent of a kilo of cocaine. If, as a service provider, you come across someone's artistic expression that is reckoned to be close enough to the line you have a problem. You need to worry about whether there's an elevated risk that the next post will cross the line, you shut it down. Your freedom of speech doesn't require a third party to broadcast your speech.
jasonkostempski 10y ago
I doubt they actually deleted the data.
modeless 10y ago
> no process involved, no chance for appeal, no explanation of the charges Child porn is not a TOS issue. It's a legal issue, and he has legal recourse. He can sue and get a judge or jury to decide his case. Google is doing what the law requires, so if you have a problem with that you have a problem with the law, not with Google.
orthecreedence 10y ago
> But we live in a world where publishing seemingly requires the cooperation the private sector With real net-neutrality protections, I believe this is false. You are free to connect your own server to the internet and serve your own content through it. Also, if you do host with a third-party, it still makes sense to do backups of your data so if something like this does happen, you can move to another host.
kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
He's not a Google customer. Hard to establish standing when a property owner cleans up your graffiti.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  This is a terrible metaphor and the entire thought behind it. If you provide some sort of consideration in exchange for something even if that consideration is your eyeballs which the provider can rent out you are a customer.
Dolores12 10y ago
You are welcome to host his 'art' on your own computer.

parineum 10y ago

But possession of child pornography is what's illegal. They very well may have reported the owner of the blog to the authorities but, in the mean time, google was both possessing and distributing the material. It's not that it's violating their TOS, it's that Google thought they may have been violating the law. EDIT: At least if that's what the content was.

67726e 10y ago
Then suspend the blog, and allow for some process to deal with the situation. Don't just torch everything on some suspicion of something going wrong. This isn't a new issue for Google. They're notorious for fucking with people's accounts and providing no recourse or customer support. Something happens? Better hope your uncle works at Google or your shit out of luck. Hell, I've hosted most of my personal domains' email accounts via Google. A few months ago one of them was deleted. I never really used the email, but I certainly had things on their I would like to have for posterity. When Google deleted the account I was given no recourse or ability to appeal. It was just gone. It's not as if the account was even anything controversial, it was just my contact-me email for an old NES modding site I had.
- awesomepantsm 10y ago
  >Don't just torch everything on some suspicion of something going wrong. You can rest assured, if it was child porn, they'd be obligued to keep backups as proof for law enforcement. I doubt the material is actually deleted, just hidden until they sort it out with the feds.
- parent5446 10y ago
  I mean, who's to say that isn't the case. The blog might still exist on Google's side, and it's just been quarantined or otherwise looks like it's been deleted from the outside.
  - 67726e 10y ago
    The point is not the "soft delete" vs "hard delete" but their total lack of transparency or customer support. It doesn't matter to the end user the difference if all outward appearance is that the blog was deleted.
    - Sleaker 10y ago
      If there's any legal thing going on they wont be able to make any statements on it anyway...
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        "Due to ongoing litigation we are unable to comment" would still be valuable in that case. Radio silence on the other hand, is not acceptable.
        tener 10y ago
        In some jurisdictions it is illegal to let your client know they are being secretely investigated. Such statement may interfere with the investigation - they may destroy the evidence etc.
true_religion 10y ago
From the OP who said: > "I've read a few of Cooper's books and the short answer is yes, pedophilia is a common theme in his writing (as is incest and necrophilia)." Because of the words 'book' and 'writing', I have the impression that everything there is written text and no certainly no pictures. This puts it in a nebulous position, at least in the USA. Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897), ended up ruling that text-only content can be deemed obscene and being text-only is not a reason to get total 1st amendment protection. However later cases, decided there was a division between erotica and obscene material, which is essentially decided on a case-by-case basis subjectively. When it comes to things such as obscenity, its not really enough to go by our 'feelings' and intuition on the matter. For instance, would you believe the US is a fully functioning, 1st world democracy, where sex toys are illegal (Alabama, upheld by State Supreme court and enforced as recently as 2009)? To me, personally, anything that comes entirely from someones fanciful imagination, no matter how distasteful, should not be considered illegal unless it directly results in the harm of another individual.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  So in the US (and Japan and only a handful of other countries), fictional depictions of under age or incestual content isn't illegal (per the court case you referenced above), so long as you're not using real people to act it out. This doesn't hold true for ... most of the rest of the planet. In the UK a man was put in jail for Simpsons porn, something that's legal in the US (although potentially a trademark violation; unless you can argue it's satire). In Cooper's home country of France, fictional depictions are actually illegal (books like Lolita are banned). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornograp... But as already stated, even if legality wasn't the issue, yes they are still a private company and can do what they want. The article mentions this and there really needs to be an effort to educate people that they need multiple backups, not just on-line, but on their own media.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    > So in the US (and Japan and only a handful of other countries), fictional depictions of under age or incestual content isn't illegal (per the court case you referenced above), so long as you're not using real people to act it out. Actually, visual incest pornography exists in the US. I am not sure why (I am within the industry, but I don't actually keep tabs on legalities that I'm not involved in), but it seems that 2 years ago VISA decided it was okay for it to take credit card payments for incest-fantasy sites, and since then there's been an explosion of mainstream studios supporting said material. Cynically speaking, it seems to me that the adult industry is more scared of how their merchant banks will react to their content, than any chance of being taken down by the US government.
AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
It is astounding to contemplate that it's possible to type a series of English words which would be illegal to _possess_! Even if I was the only one to know about these words and, for example, kept them in a safe.

madmax96 10y ago

The data resided on Google's servers -- their property. Read the terms and conditions you agree to, Google doesn't owe you anything. > If it was art that borders on distasteful to some > then google is deciding taste and public values with > private algorithms. But that's well within their right to do. If you don't like it, there's an easy solution: don't use Google. This behavior is well-known (remember Google Reader?) and expected out of Google. If you have any data on any cloud storage facility, you probably have no guarantee of its long-term persistence. You should regularly backup all your data that you value. You can get a 3 Terabyte backup drive today on Amazon for < $120, which is more than enough for most people to backup their valued data. > I'm not sure what the right thing is here. To require > any publishing platform to retain works they decide > violates their TOS seems like a big burden. But we > live in a world where publishing seemingly requires > the cooperation the private sector. If not google, at > very least a hosting company of some kind. If we want > the allow social norms to change we can't stifle > everything that falls outside of the norm. Agreed. But, there are alternatives to using a hosting company and there are ways outside of the internet to distribute information. Just because you have a right to publish does not imply that you have a right to be published, nor should it. The author was no customer of Google so the fact that so many people are upset is indicative of the growing technological entitlement mentality. Hosting isn't free, and Google was providing a gratis service to a user. For all we know, a government put pressure on Google to remove the blog -- do we really expect Google to spend money on a legal team to resist such a request? People either don't value the ability to express distasteful opinions, or they are completely unaware of these practices in modern technology companies.

kennywinker 10y ago
> the fact that so many people are upset is indicative of the growing technological entitlement mentality A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually all of their products. > You can get a 3 Terabyte backup drive today on Amazon The first words you see when you visit https://www.google.com/drive/ https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for all your files". > there are alternatives to using a hosting company Like what? Deeply technical p2p hosting solutions that are completely inaccessible to all but the most adept readers and publishers? > there are ways outside of the internet to distribute information Sure, but as we move most of our communication to the internet, this kind of thing becomes more and more problematic.

sliverstorm 10y ago

To require any publishing platform to retain works they decide violates their TOS seems like a big burden. But we live in a world where publishing seemingly requires the cooperation the private sector. Was it any different in the days of the printing press? Newspaper companies didn't have any requirement to keep around material they didn't want to print, and unless you wanted to build/buy and operate your own printing press, you depended on the private sector... Much like freedom of travel, while nobody can stop you, nobody must provide you a free platform either.

tremon 10y ago

I'm not sure what the right thing is here But I know. Either Google hosts a platform for other people to share their life, in which case Google should not have done anything without a warrant. Or Google owns the entire platform and all content, in which case they should be held liable for every bit of disputed content on their servers (including Youtube). There is no middle ground. Either you are a (de-facto) common carrier, or you're not.

robotresearcher 10y ago
If the customer violated Google's TOS, the terms he agreed to when signing up, he already agreed to having his stuff deleted.

mrcwinn 10y ago

Trust me, there was very much a process involved here. You just don't know it. And there was no removal of evidence - you can be sure everything is very well documented - just not on the public internet.

Spooky23 10y ago

It's a pure risk management problem. Child pornography is contraband. It's the virtual equivalent of a kilo of cocaine. If, as a service provider, you come across someone's artistic expression that is reckoned to be close enough to the line you have a problem. You need to worry about whether there's an elevated risk that the next post will cross the line, you shut it down. Your freedom of speech doesn't require a third party to broadcast your speech.

jasonkostempski 10y ago

I doubt they actually deleted the data.

modeless 10y ago

> no process involved, no chance for appeal, no explanation of the charges Child porn is not a TOS issue. It's a legal issue, and he has legal recourse. He can sue and get a judge or jury to decide his case. Google is doing what the law requires, so if you have a problem with that you have a problem with the law, not with Google.

orthecreedence 10y ago

> But we live in a world where publishing seemingly requires the cooperation the private sector With real net-neutrality protections, I believe this is false. You are free to connect your own server to the internet and serve your own content through it. Also, if you do host with a third-party, it still makes sense to do backups of your data so if something like this does happen, you can move to another host.

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago

He's not a Google customer. Hard to establish standing when a property owner cleans up your graffiti.

michaelmrose 10y ago
This is a terrible metaphor and the entire thought behind it. If you provide some sort of consideration in exchange for something even if that consideration is your eyeballs which the provider can rent out you are a customer.

Dolores12 10y ago

You are welcome to host his 'art' on your own computer.