4 ms·

We need to regulate Google and require it to have a transparent appeals process.

tinalumfoil 4y ago
I don't think Google's doing this out of a deep concern for CSAM and hatred for due process, but I think it's in fact the law itself that essentially requires corporations to have these trigger bans otherwise they'd face liability. Think about Google's alternatives here. They could (1) not have CSAM filters -- your data is private no need for Google to scan anything -- in which case people would use their platform to distribute illegal content and they'd be a nice target to get massive damages from. Or (2) give people due process, rights, appeals, etc despite not having any of the tools of a court of law, it's even illegal for them to look at the evidence, and if they make the wrong decision or they make the right decision too late they're still liable for their platform being used for illegal activity. Keep in mind the only way to truly know if material is sexually explicit is to show it to Potter Stewart. He'll know it when he sees it. Or (3) be proactive in building systems that detect illegal use of their platform and aggressively, without process or appeal, remove any user of the platform the moment you have any evidence at all they are engaged in this activity. Because people will try to use Google's platform for illegal activity and Google knows this, (3) is not only the only sensible option but it's actually the only legal option. It would, in effect, be illegal for Google to do anything other than scanning all your files and aggressively ban people.
- treis 4y ago
  >use their platform to distribute I'm not a fan of this phrasing because it absolves Google of responsibility. If the CSAM is on a Google server then Google is possessing and distributing CSAM. You can say they're doing it unwittingly or unintentionally but that doesn't change the fact that they're doing it.
  - anon84873628 4y ago
    And that's the line of thinking that makes #3 the only option for Google.
- abigail95 4y ago
  There's not a law that forces them to scan. Amazon isn't scanning anything, where are the damages paid out to those using AWS for CSAM?
- tjmc 4y ago
  What's wrong with (4) - report all CSAM positives to the relevent authorities and then abide by their decision? They don't need any of the "tools of a court of law" you mentioned in (2) if they defer to the authorities and then stay in their lane. It seems to me that the big issue here is Google digging its heals in on an account ban, even when the victim of a false positive had been cleared by the police.

I don't think Google's doing this out of a deep concern for CSAM and hatred for due process, but I think it's in fact the law itself that essentially requires corporations to have these trigger bans otherwise they'd face liability. Think about Google's alternatives here. They could (1) not have CSAM filters -- your data is private no need for Google to scan anything -- in which case people would use their platform to distribute illegal content and they'd be a nice target to get massive damages from. Or (2) give people due process, rights, appeals, etc despite not having any of the tools of a court of law, it's even illegal for them to look at the evidence, and if they make the wrong decision or they make the right decision too late they're still liable for their platform being used for illegal activity. Keep in mind the only way to truly know if material is sexually explicit is to show it to Potter Stewart. He'll know it when he sees it. Or (3) be proactive in building systems that detect illegal use of their platform and aggressively, without process or appeal, remove any user of the platform the moment you have any evidence at all they are engaged in this activity. Because people will try to use Google's platform for illegal activity and Google knows this, (3) is not only the only sensible option but it's actually the only legal option. It would, in effect, be illegal for Google to do anything other than scanning all your files and aggressively ban people.

treis 4y ago
>use their platform to distribute I'm not a fan of this phrasing because it absolves Google of responsibility. If the CSAM is on a Google server then Google is possessing and distributing CSAM. You can say they're doing it unwittingly or unintentionally but that doesn't change the fact that they're doing it.
- anon84873628 4y ago
  And that's the line of thinking that makes #3 the only option for Google.
abigail95 4y ago
There's not a law that forces them to scan. Amazon isn't scanning anything, where are the damages paid out to those using AWS for CSAM?
tjmc 4y ago
What's wrong with (4) - report all CSAM positives to the relevent authorities and then abide by their decision? They don't need any of the "tools of a court of law" you mentioned in (2) if they defer to the authorities and then stay in their lane. It seems to me that the big issue here is Google digging its heals in on an account ban, even when the victim of a false positive had been cleared by the police.