3 ms·

> Heck, an adult lost their gmail account forever because the sent a picture of their child to their doctor; one the doctor asked for. All the bad press didn't

> Heck, an adult lost their gmail account forever because the sent a picture of their child to their doctor; one the doctor asked for. All the bad press didn't sort that out? That kind of thing shouldn't happen in the first place, but we can usually expect that once it hits headlines some PR drone swoops in to fix the issue.

RHSeeger 4y ago
Certainly not everyone that this type of thing happens to gets front page attention. I don't know that it ever got resolved but, even if it did, the "I was able to convince tends of thousands of people to talk about my issue until someone paid attention" is not a reasonable process to go through. Even in the best case, he lost access to his accounts for an unreasonable amount of time. If he used the same account for business, that could be financially disastrous.
handedness 4y ago
That's a definition of the word "fix" with which I am unfamiliar. He still doesn't have access to his accounts. If a sympathetic police department had not offered to navigate the (likely complex) process of restoring their copy of his data to him, he would have little hope of recovering the data, either. (My hat's off to whomever made that decision, because my guess is other considerations would almost always prevail.) If federal investigators had not been quite so favorable in recognizing the nature of the situation, that component alone could have easily ruined him. I'm also unaware of what his legal and other professional fees have been in all this, but I would imagine Google has done nothing to reimburse him for his expenses, much less compensate him for the time wasted and incredible stress that had to place on him and his family. Beyond all that, getting SEO bombed as being potentially involved in the production and distribution CSAM is not a positive outcome for anyone who values their privacy or wants to ever have a normal interaction with a new employer or any other entity that may search his name. Beyond that, those who regularly fill out official forms relating to background and behavior will forever have to answer some questions differently and jump through the additional hoops an experience like that would trigger. His outcome has been one of the least-terrible possibilities, but I hope he sues Google in a very public and embarrassing way, because whatever damages are awarded will be a rounding error to them. Finally, the process itself is by no indications anything but still completely broken. Your suggested "fix" is anything but.
that_guy_iain 4y ago
Google doesn't really care about bad PR from account deletions. Most people don't hear about them, they rarely hit the news. What annoys me is, just this week Meta tried to claim that they were basically a social infrastructure that is essential everyone uses and relies on and that they shouldn't be held to blame for what people see on there when it's legal to post. While at the same time, these companies don't want to act like any of the other infrastructure. Ban people for no reason, no recourse, and no come back. While at the same time claiming they're there for the people and are providing a public service.
kmeisthax 4y ago
Google's PR team explicitly said they will never reinstate that user and that they stand by their CSAM detection policy. I'm not sure what mindset drives people to say "even if you didn't commit a crime, you're guilty of the appearance of that crime, which is good enough". Social media outrage mobs perhaps, but my money is more on "this user puts us at risk of criminal prosecution". A lot of companies treat CSAM detection & removal as a subdepartment of risk management, which means lots of "shut the fuck up and go away".

RHSeeger 4y ago

Certainly not everyone that this type of thing happens to gets front page attention. I don't know that it ever got resolved but, even if it did, the "I was able to convince tends of thousands of people to talk about my issue until someone paid attention" is not a reasonable process to go through. Even in the best case, he lost access to his accounts for an unreasonable amount of time. If he used the same account for business, that could be financially disastrous.

handedness 4y ago

That's a definition of the word "fix" with which I am unfamiliar. He still doesn't have access to his accounts. If a sympathetic police department had not offered to navigate the (likely complex) process of restoring their copy of his data to him, he would have little hope of recovering the data, either. (My hat's off to whomever made that decision, because my guess is other considerations would almost always prevail.) If federal investigators had not been quite so favorable in recognizing the nature of the situation, that component alone could have easily ruined him. I'm also unaware of what his legal and other professional fees have been in all this, but I would imagine Google has done nothing to reimburse him for his expenses, much less compensate him for the time wasted and incredible stress that had to place on him and his family. Beyond all that, getting SEO bombed as being potentially involved in the production and distribution CSAM is not a positive outcome for anyone who values their privacy or wants to ever have a normal interaction with a new employer or any other entity that may search his name. Beyond that, those who regularly fill out official forms relating to background and behavior will forever have to answer some questions differently and jump through the additional hoops an experience like that would trigger. His outcome has been one of the least-terrible possibilities, but I hope he sues Google in a very public and embarrassing way, because whatever damages are awarded will be a rounding error to them. Finally, the process itself is by no indications anything but still completely broken. Your suggested "fix" is anything but.

that_guy_iain 4y ago

Google doesn't really care about bad PR from account deletions. Most people don't hear about them, they rarely hit the news. What annoys me is, just this week Meta tried to claim that they were basically a social infrastructure that is essential everyone uses and relies on and that they shouldn't be held to blame for what people see on there when it's legal to post. While at the same time, these companies don't want to act like any of the other infrastructure. Ban people for no reason, no recourse, and no come back. While at the same time claiming they're there for the people and are providing a public service.

kmeisthax 4y ago

Google's PR team explicitly said they will never reinstate that user and that they stand by their CSAM detection policy. I'm not sure what mindset drives people to say "even if you didn't commit a crime, you're guilty of the appearance of that crime, which is good enough". Social media outrage mobs perhaps, but my money is more on "this user puts us at risk of criminal prosecution". A lot of companies treat CSAM detection & removal as a subdepartment of risk management, which means lots of "shut the fuck up and go away".