4 ms·
> It seems like the simplest solution here would be to not ban accounts automatically for CSAM detections, but to have a process to do so based on police recomm
by notriddle 4y ago
> It seems like the simplest solution here would be to not ban accounts automatically for CSAM detections, but to have a process to do so based on police recommendation.
The police aren't going to recommend a ban. They don't want people banned. They want people arrested, tried, and convicted for criminal possession. They're going to recommend keeping the account open until they have enough evidence to take it to court.
- dcow 4y agoWhich seems completely fine. If the person is being investigated and they are continuing to commit abuses, the police will immediately arrest them and have evidence to bear increasing the odds that society locks the person up prompty. If the suspect is in custody, what does the status of their account matter? The point is that the account ultimately gets closed and the data purged if the suspect is found guilty, so what benefit is there to anybody in being delete-happy?
- sangnoir 4y ago> Which seems completely fine. Google probably doesn't share the same rosy outlook. Long-running investigations that do not result in charges will be bad PR. The headline "Google shared private data on 100s of innocent users with law enforcement" will not be received well.
- ghiculescu 4y agoIsn’t that why we have warrants? To enable the sharing of private data on (potentially) innocent people with law enforcement.