3 ms·
There's a further nuance there as well. Say you work for a site that accepts UGC images (like a major social network for example). It's required that you have a
by jsjohnst 10y ago
There's a further nuance there as well. Say you work for a site that accepts UGC images (like a major social network for example). It's required that you have a team who works with law enforcement to handle investigations / takedown / preservation. Anyone who works for said team unfortunately thus has to see those images and have them, at least temporarily, on their machine, but there is zero legal precedent to protect them. It's a legal grey area and thus I have and continue to recommend anyone in such position to refuse to risk it.
- wbl 10y agoYou have the defense of "we are specifically required by law enforcement to do this" which is pretty strong. It's no different from a locksmith being asked by a cop to break into someplace the cop needs to be.
- semi-extrinsic 10y agoI think the psychological trauma would be a much bigger concern for most than some vague legal threat.
- BinaryIdiot 10y agoThis was my thinking as well. On a huge social networking site I would imagine this comes up an awful lot and to have to see those types of images along with other abuses has got to be difficult. I'm also curious if you see enough of them how it changes your mind and if there have been any studies on it. Fortunately I know you can integrate with that hashing project (I forget what it's called) where they generate a hash for known images of child porn so those can at least be removed automatically but I don't know how much of a percentage that catches.
- jsjohnst 10y agoIt's called PhotoDNA.