4 ms·

It 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 Goog

by Alupis 4y ago

It 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 ago
SFPD investigated the other photos, too, and determined there was no crime.
josephcsible 4y ago
The 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 ago
  Frankly, 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 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. 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?
  - gambiting 4y ago
    Really? What kind of paths? Gmail isn't a paid service - you can't force Google to continue providing you with Gmail access if they don't want to, I can't believe any court would agree to such a thing. They reserve the right to terminate your access for any reason,and since you don't have a business relationship with them in this case I wonder what could you possibly claim in front of the judge to make them reverse this decision by law.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      This isn't about a free GMail account... From the article there appears to be an arbitration path (based on the dollar amount quoted in the article, but they talk about it like it would be a lawsuit) - but Dad explicitly chose not to take it for some reason. It would be very surprising if the ToS for Google Accounts didn't include an arbitration agreement. Also, Dad had a paid Google One account - filled with apparently lots of data. He definitely has a legal path here and chose not to take it. Why?
      - warbler73 4y ago
        Why do you continue to insinuate this man may be a pedophile when he has been completely exonerated?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bawolff 4y ago
This is always true, and a fundamental reason why free societies adopted the notion of open courts: to ensure that all sides of the story are known and innocent people don't suffer based on ifs and maybes.
- Alupis 4y ago
  The Dad appears to have chosen not to sue Google for some reason. The dollar amount quoted in the article is peanuts for what these things normally cost, making it sound more like an arbitration thing. Typically if you win arbitration or court, the losing party pays the lawyers anyway - so why did he not pursue this?
rokhayakebe 4y ago
How can we trust the dad? I think if someone was doing something criminal and their access was blocked, they will juat quietly walk away. But talking to the press? That would be a new level.
drewmol 4y ago
Google seemed to review the images and determine they were for the reason he explained, but the video of his wife naked in the bed with his son seemed to be what was still considered an issue. Perhaps they were asleep while he filmed the video?
NikolaNovak 4y ago
This is not unknowable. Police reviewed the case with full access to all documents and videos. A reputable news organization contacted Google for comment. There was all the opportunity to present "other side of story" by Google if any. And I actually think everybody in article goes out of their WAY to present the other side - they repeatedly call google's work important but difficult and offer several plausible non malevolent reasons for the behaviour. I agree life is complex and we rarely get all the details, but even I don't agree with a completely defeatist "life is unknowable" attitude.

by Alupis 4y ago

loeg 4y ago

SFPD investigated the other photos, too, and determined there was no crime.

josephcsible 4y ago

The 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 ago
Frankly, 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 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. 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?
- gambiting 4y ago
  Really? What kind of paths? Gmail isn't a paid service - you can't force Google to continue providing you with Gmail access if they don't want to, I can't believe any court would agree to such a thing. They reserve the right to terminate your access for any reason,and since you don't have a business relationship with them in this case I wonder what could you possibly claim in front of the judge to make them reverse this decision by law.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    This isn't about a free GMail account... From the article there appears to be an arbitration path (based on the dollar amount quoted in the article, but they talk about it like it would be a lawsuit) - but Dad explicitly chose not to take it for some reason. It would be very surprising if the ToS for Google Accounts didn't include an arbitration agreement. Also, Dad had a paid Google One account - filled with apparently lots of data. He definitely has a legal path here and chose not to take it. Why?
    - warbler73 4y ago
      Why do you continue to insinuate this man may be a pedophile when he has been completely exonerated?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bawolff 4y ago

This is always true, and a fundamental reason why free societies adopted the notion of open courts: to ensure that all sides of the story are known and innocent people don't suffer based on ifs and maybes.

Alupis 4y ago
The Dad appears to have chosen not to sue Google for some reason. The dollar amount quoted in the article is peanuts for what these things normally cost, making it sound more like an arbitration thing. Typically if you win arbitration or court, the losing party pays the lawyers anyway - so why did he not pursue this?

rokhayakebe 4y ago

How can we trust the dad? I think if someone was doing something criminal and their access was blocked, they will juat quietly walk away. But talking to the press? That would be a new level.

drewmol 4y ago

Google seemed to review the images and determine they were for the reason he explained, but the video of his wife naked in the bed with his son seemed to be what was still considered an issue. Perhaps they were asleep while he filmed the video?

NikolaNovak 4y ago

This is not unknowable. Police reviewed the case with full access to all documents and videos. A reputable news organization contacted Google for comment. There was all the opportunity to present "other side of story" by Google if any. And I actually think everybody in article goes out of their WAY to present the other side - they repeatedly call google's work important but difficult and offer several plausible non malevolent reasons for the behaviour. I agree life is complex and we rarely get all the details, but even I don't agree with a completely defeatist "life is unknowable" attitude.