11 ms·
A Dad Took Photos of His Kid for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal
- josephcsible 4y agoIt's been three months, and AFAIK, Google still hasn't given him his account back yet.
- Overtonwindow 4y agoThat would require Google to at least tacitly Admit that they made a mistake.
- duxup 4y agoOr that one guy who can restore accounts to get to it. There’s no apparent customer service system so I suspect the whole process is informal to some extent.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoForget that - Google states to the media they had reviewed the situation and had decided to uphold his ban. Good luck convincing them to admit their “appeal” system, and their media review, were mistakes. Google is too arrogant for that.
- Alupis 4y agoIt might be worth remembering we only have one side of the story here. How do we know we can thoroughly trust the Dad any more than we can thoroughly trust Google? Perhaps there are more pictures Dad took the article doesn't know about? Perhaps Google can't verify it was indeed Dad's child in the images? Perhaps there is more to the story than what the article lets on...perhaps not. We will never really know.
- loeg 4y agoSFPD investigated the other photos, too, and determined there was no crime.
- josephcsible 4y agoThe police investigated and verified that Google's accusations were completely false. Also: > we only have one side of the story here In real court, if you don't show up to tell your side of the story, you're considered to be in the wrong by default. Why should the court of public opinion be any different, when Google has had the chance to tell their side but chose not to?
- Alupis 4y agoFrankly, the "court of public opinion" is the only court where facts don't matter, only opinion. This is a clear legal issue, and you will never hear the actual outcome.
- para_parolu 4y agoWe have one side of the story because the other side (huge corporation) didn’t give any information and decided to keep ban. No transparency there. Ps. This “we will never really know” is triggered me. This phrase used by Russian propaganda when they got caught in crimes every damn time.
- Alupis 4y ago> We have one side of the story because the other side (huge corporation) didn’t give any information and decided to keep ban. No transparency there. I'm not sure why we expect Google to provide transparency for CSAM bans/investigations. That would be highly irregular, and not just for Google. The Dad has legal path(s) to take if he feels he was truly wronged. Paths that would ultimately cost nothing if he prevailed. Paths that would likely force Google to undo their decision if Dad's statements are in fact the truth and Google has no other data/evidence. Dad chose not do do any of that though... why? I'm confident there are lawyers out there that would even represent Dad for free. > This phrase used by Russian propaganda when they got caught in crimes every damn time. What?
- googlryas 4y agoWasn't there something like the guy searching for CP before the photo was uploaded, or something along those lines?
- josephcsible 4y agoNo. > “I determined that the incident did not meet the elements of a crime and that no crime occurred,” Mr. Hillard wrote in his report. The police had access to all the information Google had on Mark and decided it did not constitute child abuse or exploitation.
- googlryas 4y ago> It contained a letter informing him that he had been investigated as well as copies of the search warrants served on Google and his internet service provider. An investigator, whose contact information was provided, had asked for everything in Mark’s Google account: his internet searches, his location history, his messages and any document, photo and video he’d stored with the company. > *The search, related to “child exploitation videos,” had taken place in February, within a week of his taking the photos of his son.* So maybe no crime occurred, but google doesn't want that kind of user. I assume you can just type "child exploitation videos" into Google without breaking the law, but google may terminate your account.
- 29083011397778 4y agoYou man the search into his account by the San Fransisco PD? Who later cleared him of any wrongdoing? Note that Google, after hearing from the police, stood by their choice as well.
- googlryas 4y agoRight. Google never said you get to keep your account unless you do something illegal. Which is why the terms of service are there. I just want to know the context of that search that he made. It could very well be disqualifying, or it could be totally benign.
- sekh60 4y agoThis story broke the camels back for us when it first appeared here and got us to migrate our email to protonmail and a domain we bought.
- josephcsible 4y agoI wish we had a portable email address format, like phone numbers are, instead of being inherently tied to a provider.
- layer8 4y agoOwning a domain is close enough.
- rosnd 4y agoBuy a domain name, now you have a portable email address.
- noirbot 4y agoThough I often have questions about how that works in terms of managing your domain. I feel like I shouldn't have the account I manage my domains with tied to an email address at the domain that's under management. If my email provider disappears, I'm potentially locked out of the account I need to log into in order to change the MX records, right?
- layer8 4y agoUsually it’s just username/account number and password plus TOTP 2FA. Depending on country (?) they also have your postal address on file and can send you a reset password by letter. And you can specify an alternative email address like your work address, or a free email account that you only use for that purpose. Or you acquire two domains at different registrars where you can mutually use an email address at the other domain.
- beachy 4y agoIt's hard to avoi nd this chicken and egg situation. I use fastmail and they allow you "alias" addresses. So even though my primary email is on my custom dimain e.g. myname@mydomain.com, Fastmail also gives me an alsia of myname@fastmail.com. That's the email I used to log in (to AWS) and manage my MX records. If either Fastmail or AWS were to go rogue/broke, I like to think I would eventually be able to restore access to my domain even without email? Hope never to find out.
- Waterluvian 4y agoThis is the one that causes me to finally commit an entire weekend to getting off Google. Because I have the exact same kinds of photos on my phone, auto-backed up to Google Photos, intended for his physician.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nehal3m 4y agoNextCloud on a VPS works very well for me. The AIO setup does all the work for you: https://github.com/nextcloud/all-in-one https://github.com/nextcloud/all-in-one
- Barrin92 4y agowhat happened to the guy was awful but in general, don't ever store medical correspondence on Google cloud or send it over email or messengers. Here in the EU and I would be surprised if it's different in the US there's dedicated apps for telemedicine which are regulated like medical devices, so there's confidentiality, no storage or scanning of vieo or audio, and so on. Sucks but you can't really treat any other services as secure or private.
- cozzyd 4y agoright but most people take pictures with their phones nowadays, which might automatically backup up to google photos.
- Waterluvian 4y agoAnd the supermajority of users of this set of systems and features are entirely technically unaware of how to micromanage it. To them, they have a phone that backs up to the cloud.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xeromal 4y agoSounds like there almost needs to be an incognito mode for cameras.
- themacguffinman 4y agoThere is. The Android camera app has a button on the top-right corner that lets you quickly switch between saving to "photo storage" or "locked folder". If you pick "locked folder", it saves it to a special folder that isn't backed up to the cloud and requires a screen lock to open.
- cozzyd 4y ago
- bagels 4y agoDoes getting your google account blocked prevent you from using GCP? There are so many stories of people losing access to google accounts that it seems way too risky to use GCP when this sort of thing can happen.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoPotentially yes, if you use a personal account for GCP. Don’t do it. If you have to use GCP, use a burner account… because Google is absolutely asinine right now. I would not trust Google if they were a hired employee to turn on my sprinklers in the morning. Edit: For this reason, I am actually all in favor of having GCP, AWS, Azure, etc declared utilities. Unless there is a crime, we have a right to an account. Your electricity company can’t cut you off whenever they feel like.
- ronsor 4y agoGoogle aggressively links accounts together. If you ever hire someone who was banned by big G, kiss everything goodbye.
- mopsi 4y agoMicrosoft does it too: forces everyone to sign up to Microsoft account and defaults to syncing/saving to OneDrive. If you hit OneDrive content filters, you lose everything, including Excel spreadsheets and Xbox games.
- coffeeling 4y agoHe means something more aggressive than a whole platform lockout for the account. What Google does is you have entirely different accounts, one gets indicted for something, they try to find other accounts you have/are linked to and nuke those too. eg. your company has a Google dev account, hires someone, and that someone misbehaves on a personal account. Your company account is at a very real risk of getting nuked with Google's famous customer nonservice afterwards.
- 4y ago
- markdown 4y agoShit, this gave me pause. My dog has crypto* and my vet asked me to send him pics at various states of arousal so I have numerous pics of dog junk on my phone. * Cryptorchidism is the medical term that refers to the failure of one or both testicles (testes) to descend into the scrotum.
- rosnd 4y agoThis is such a weird story. Is google really using computer vision to detect CSAM? How could that possibly work? This seems like a tremendous technical challenge. Usually photoDNA has been deployed for this, but that almost certainly wouldn't be triggered by the dad uploading his own photos that hadn't been previously marked as CSAM in the photoDNA database.
- mopsi 4y agoEveryone's using AI, and widely. I sell stuff online and sync a product feed to Facebook. Products often get banned based on image analysis. Sometimes it is reasonably close, eg darts getting classified as dangerous weapons, other times sneakers get that classification. If I appeal, it usually gets overturned, but sometimes sneakers get confirmed as weapons after review. There seems to be no image history; when a previously whitelisted product gets imported again (with a minor change in description or something), it may get classified as weapon again. Needless to say, my ad spend is now zero and I expect my account to get banned any moment. Fuzzy AI-based image analysis is OK for things like extracting roof shapes from aerial images, but seems totally inadequate for moderation, because it lacks nuance and context.
- culanuchachamim 4y agoOriginal thread 3 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32538805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32538805
- jack7e 4y ago+1 for the archive link
- baggy_trough 4y agoOutrageous and unacceptable.
- 9991 4y agoThen don't accept it. Null route Google in your hosts file and move on with your life.
- wastedimage 4y agox
- lrvick 4y agoGoogle will not lose any significant number of users no matter how shitty they are, because most people have no idea how to leave.
- orangepurple 4y agoGoogle doesn't give a damn if you leave unless you are a ad spend whale. If you're not spending at least a million a month on ads you are just a drop in the ocean for Google.
- fersarr 4y agoSo, basically if I have disabled cloud backups in google photos, this shouldn't affect me right?
- loeg 4y agoFor now they don't scan the contents of your phone, yes. If that changes, potentially no.
- lrvick 4y agoDo not send them via plaintext email, or a proprietary chat system. Also be aware that other corpo apps on your phone may harvest and back them up too or scan them in place. US cell carriers require extensive root access malware like OMA-DM toolkits that can be triggered to spy on anything on your phone at any time. As long as you use proprietary software on your devices you will never be safe from this type of thing.
- Herbstluft 4y agoAside from the fact that Google likes to randomly lock longtime users out of their accounts too sometimes, yes. Those cases happen unprompted.
- formerly_proven 4y ago> Mark did not remember this video and no longer had access to it, but he said it sounded like a private moment he would have been inspired to capture, not realizing it would ever be viewed or judged by anyone else. Recontextualisation is one hell of a drug.
- drewmol 4y agoYeah I wouldn’t be surprised if they were asleep in the video and that’s what Google still had issue with. Perhaps not but if so, it would explain things a bit better.
- hnbad 4y agoHonestly? My son is two years old and sleeps in the same bed as us. All three of us also don't like being too warm so during the summer months he would sometimes only wear his diapers and we would only wear underpants. It's not clear from the description what the video shows exactly but apparently the police didn't consider it a problem. If I had captured a moment of my son doing something cute while we're still in bed, that would have fit the description.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoThanks for the reminder. Wife and I take a lot of photos of our newborn, including in the bath. We think nothing of it, but probably worth figuring out a digital plan.
- cpcallen 4y agoUse a film camera and develop the film yourself.
- lostapathy 4y agoDigital camera would be fine too. Some photo printers can print direct from an SD card without any PC or network connection.
- hnbad 4y agoSame. I make an effort to choose angles that aren't too "revealing" but this got very difficult with video rather than photos. It's extremely disturbing to have to consider what a US company might consider "pornographic" when recording an entirely non-sexual interaction with your own child but here we are. If the idea of an AI flagging an innocent moment wasn't bad enough, I can't stomach the idea of having to appeal this by literally having a stranger review a private moment in order to determine if it was sexual abuse. This just seems like an unjustifiable invasion of privacy.
- Cameri 4y agoThat Google snoops and watches your video, photos and emails should not be a surprise to anyone in 2022. If your entire online identity is tied to a string that ends in @gmail.com they own you.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jacob019 4y agoThese stories of people being banned by google without recourse are so common, it's amazing that anyone here is still using google for anything important. First of all, get off of gmail. If you do nothing else, get off of gmail. I'm very happy with fastmail, they provide email, calendar, contacts, notes, and some cloud storage for a monthly fee. I've also come to love nextcloud, I started using it to replace google photos, but there are tons of other great features too. I use it for photos, notes, calendar, contacts, news, and some collaboration stuff. It's open source, you can self-host, or get a hosted account somewhere. While you're degoogling, start using duckduckgo for search. It's a better experience than google these days, and if you really want to send a query over to google, just add !g to the end of the search. Get off of Chrome too. I would prefer that you use firefox, but chromium works fine too. Getting off of google voice took a bit more work. I ported my number to Telnyx, wrote a SMS-to-XMPP bridge, and set up Asterisk to route voice calls. I'm happy with that solution but it won't be practical for most, so maybe someone else can comment on google voice alternatives.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- InCityDreams 4y ago>I would prefer that you use firefox, but chromium works fine too. The rest of your comment seems fair, and equally very interesting, and I'll follow up with fastmail and nextcloud - thanks, but just the particular "I would prefer that you....", seemed jarringly out of place, and made me somewhat happier I use [a heavily customised] Brave [with a very edited hosts file], for no other good reason than ff just doesn't do it for me, as much as I've tried, and tried to like it.
- jacob019 4y agoThat's fair, I just think it's a shame that Firefox's market share has grown so low. It's still my favorite. I also believe that Blink hegemony is bad for open web standards. Use what you want, but not chrome.
- pyuser583 4y agoStratechery covered this … they pointed out the really f*ed: part: Google is refusing to reinstate the account. Protecting children is important. AI is imperfect. But there is no reason the keep the account suspended once it’s clear there was no wrongdoing. This man is innocent of doing anything wrong. Google had suspended him, and removed access to all his online account data. And refuses to reinstate. We balance out liberties with responsibilities all the time. We allow the state power to protect children, and corporations have the right to assist them. There are careful balancing acts being done. But there is no balancing act here. There is no justification for Googles action.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoThis is the part that should receive a Congressional inquiry. I would love to see Congress drag Sundar Pichai (and no one else) before them and scream “What the hell is wrong with you?” in his face. We have courts for a reason. They found no wrongdoing. Google is objectively deciding they know better than an elected court on what happened. This whole situation is absurd and evil.
- lrvick 4y agoRemember Google can ban any account at any time for any reason including because they just do not like you. No Google software, devices, or data on their systems belongs to you. Sue them and they will remind you of this fact in detail. If you want to own your digital life you will have to commit to being a pariah in your social circle that is ridiculed constantly for using open source tools.
- rcoveson 4y ago> If you want to own your digital life you will have to commit to being a pariah in your social circle that is ridiculed constantly for using open source tools. I think your friends are just a little too obsessed with social media. The only response I ever hear to "I don't have a facebook/twitter/whatever" is "yeah, that makes sense, I think about deleting mine all the time."
- 4y ago
- warbler73 4y agoApple's Photos app tried to tell me that my child was my lover in their photo event labeling, which really pissed me off a lot.
- dzhiurgis 4y agoI think i had something like that. If you do “review more photos” too much and your pretty similar to your partner - you will get this.
- morgosmaci 4y agoIt was removed but there was a discussion about a similar account over on the Photos reddit this week. https://old.reddit.com/r/googlephotos/comments/yzz03x/it_looks_like_this_account_has_content_that/ https://old.reddit.com/r/googlephotos/comments/yzz03x/it_loo...
- hellfish 4y ago> After setting up a Gmail account in the mid-aughts, Mark, who is in his 40s, came to rely heavily on Google. He synced appointments with his wife on Google Calendar. His Android smartphone camera backed up his photos and videos to the Google cloud. He even had a phone plan with Google Fi. His first mistake. He (and a whole bunch of others) forgot the principle of least privilege. The moment you start letting a company like google domesticate your usage patterns, you're essentially their bitch from that point onward. Better to keep all of their stuff compartmentalized
- ssss11 4y agoSadly I think everyone in the 00’s incorrectly assumed these companies having custody of our data didn’t equal them monitoring the data. The time has long passed since we should have left Google services if we care at all about privacy.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- einpoklum 4y ago> Google flagged him > Mark’s wife grabbed her husband’s phone and texted a few high-quality close-ups of their son’s groin area to her iPhone > Gmail account ... Mark ... came to rely heavily on Google ... appointments ... on Google Calendar... smartphone camera backed up his photos ... to the Google cloud. ... Google Fi. The photos should never have been made visible to third parties, certainly not large nosy corporations which analyze you and your behavior and "flag" people (and also share info with the NSA or other US government agencies, as per the Snowden revelations). We must educate people around us not to just use these gratis software services naively. Of course, the defaults of what's installed and configured on the gadgets we buy is something that many will stick with despite our best efforts - but remember that all of this would never have happened if Mark had not _actively_ allowed it: If he had simply never had a Google account, or never entered its credentials into his, phone, this whole situation would have been averted. So, tell your friends, tell your family members, tell yourselves: * Putting something "on the cloud" means giving a third party, whom you can't trust, a copy of it. * When you send someone an email, it's like you've sent a copy to the company which runs his email service. If its @gmail.com - imagine your email is placed on large placards in Google's lobby. * Minimize the use of services by large multi-pronged companies like Google, to avoid surveillance. ... and all of above for Apple, their iTunes cloud, email and other services. Finally, * Prefer privacy-respecting communications applications like Signal for sending messages.
- Linux_Watcher 4y agoOld News
- dang 4y agoPlease don't post archive.org links when the original URL works or there's a good alternate source available. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20archive.org%20links&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- Ptchd 4y agoIt's to avoid pay walls....
- skissane 4y agoPost the actual URI, then put archive URI in comment. If it helps people (with paywalls or hug of death or whatever) people will often upvote it and it will achieve a reasonably prominent position among the comments.
- Ptchd 4y agoBut what if they modify the article after you post a link to it?
- pvg 4y agoPeople notice that. Archive links remove important info from the post, this is a pretty well-settled HN thing with lots of moderator commentary if you want an infinite supply of reasoning.
- Wowfunhappy 4y agoFrankly, I also think it's not right to put load on archive.org's servers when not necessary. Also, if people use archive.org explicitly to avoid paywalls, sites are just going to block archive.org, and then we won't have an Archive (to check whether the article gets updated, for instance).
- Ptchd 4y ago