5 ms·

I guess I'm still not sure why a questionable photo in Picasa means a total ban from all Google services. Or, couldn't users get a warning that they're about t

I guess I'm still not sure why a questionable photo in Picasa means a total ban from all Google services. Or, couldn't users get a warning that they're about to be perma-banned? E.g... "The Google Gods have banned you. You have 48 hours to save any data you wish to keep. Afterward you will be unable to log in & access any Google product." They'd still have backups of everything regardless of what the user does in that 48 hours if they'd like to initiate legal proceedings or whatever.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
"The Google Gods have banned you. You have 48 hours to collect your child pornography." Yeah, that would be fantastic. They should, however, tell you precisely which part of the TOS you violated - down to highlighting the specific words.
- hackinthebochs 15y ago
  >"The Google Gods have banned you. You have 48 hours to collect your child pornography." This is completely a non-issue. If the user already potentially committed a crime, Google already has the evidence. Whether or not the user is able to go back and redownload images that may or may not be illegal that may not have been saved is completely inconsequential. The issue is for the false-positive cases or the borderline cases. Google is not the law; let the judicial system determine guilt.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    > Whether or not the user is able to go back and redownload images that may or may not be illegal that may not have been saved is completely inconsequential. With all due respect, unless you're a lawyer, your comment has zero weight. If I rent a hotel room and use it to store a barrel of cocaine, and a cleaning lady discovers it, I'm fairly certain they are 1) under no obligation to me to allow me to retrieve my cocaine, and 2) are probably legally prohibited from allowing me to collect my coke barrel.
    - hackinthebochs 15y ago
      Point taken, but these situations are much more fuzzy. If I understood correctly, this was an automated detection of possible child pornography. In such a case it would seem likely that Google acting proactively has no culpability. The only legal requirement (from the many articles I've read on the subject) is to remove illegal content once the company is made aware. Automated detection based on heuristics likely would not fall under that category. If specific pictures are under question and a human deems them likely to be illegal they can disable access to those pictures. They have no legal responsibility to prevent access to legal data. Edit: downvoting without a rebuttal is cowardly at best.
      - pavel_lishin 15y ago
        > downvoting without a rebuttal is cowardly at best I didn't downvote, but I disagree. I don't have to justify every decision I make.
        hackinthebochs 15y ago
        Well that goes against HN etiquette, which I guess is also your choice to ignore :)

pavel_lishin 15y ago

"The Google Gods have banned you. You have 48 hours to collect your child pornography." Yeah, that would be fantastic. They should, however, tell you precisely which part of the TOS you violated - down to highlighting the specific words.

hackinthebochs 15y ago
>"The Google Gods have banned you. You have 48 hours to collect your child pornography." This is completely a non-issue. If the user already potentially committed a crime, Google already has the evidence. Whether or not the user is able to go back and redownload images that may or may not be illegal that may not have been saved is completely inconsequential. The issue is for the false-positive cases or the borderline cases. Google is not the law; let the judicial system determine guilt.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  > Whether or not the user is able to go back and redownload images that may or may not be illegal that may not have been saved is completely inconsequential. With all due respect, unless you're a lawyer, your comment has zero weight. If I rent a hotel room and use it to store a barrel of cocaine, and a cleaning lady discovers it, I'm fairly certain they are 1) under no obligation to me to allow me to retrieve my cocaine, and 2) are probably legally prohibited from allowing me to collect my coke barrel.
  - hackinthebochs 15y ago
    Point taken, but these situations are much more fuzzy. If I understood correctly, this was an automated detection of possible child pornography. In such a case it would seem likely that Google acting proactively has no culpability. The only legal requirement (from the many articles I've read on the subject) is to remove illegal content once the company is made aware. Automated detection based on heuristics likely would not fall under that category. If specific pictures are under question and a human deems them likely to be illegal they can disable access to those pictures. They have no legal responsibility to prevent access to legal data. Edit: downvoting without a rebuttal is cowardly at best.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      > downvoting without a rebuttal is cowardly at best I didn't downvote, but I disagree. I don't have to justify every decision I make.
      - hackinthebochs 15y ago
        Well that goes against HN etiquette, which I guess is also your choice to ignore :)