5 ms·

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 “w

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?
      - Alupis 4y ago
        He was not exonerated, that is not what this word means. The rest of your statement appears to be a straw man, because I have not once stated he is in fact a pedophile.
        warbler73 4y ago
        You continue to insinuate it.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Are there any known examples of people using arbitrage to successfully recover their Google accounts?
      - Alupis 4y ago
        Arbitration is not public - so we would never know. That is not unique to Google either, it's just how it works. My guess would be it happens far more often that you might realize, given Google's scale and breadth of services offered (paid and unpaid). People have disputes all the time with big companies, and arbitration is how they are normally resolved. Arbitration is designed to 1) usually minimize the public risk to the company in the event of a loss, and 2) make the proceedings far more affordable for all parties involved. Arbitration carries all the same weight and enforcement of a real lawsuit, but takes less time and is less costly.
- warbler73 4y ago
  > 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. San Francisco Police Department: > “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. What more do you want from him Alupis? He was exonerated but you are suggesting he did not "do any of that" (false) to clear his name. Why would you say this given the article already rules it out?
  - Alupis 4y ago
    He should use the legal system for what it was designed for - to settle a disagreement as per the ToS for his paid Google One account. The article even says this is an option - but he chose not to pursue it.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      Because pursuing it would cost money and time for a service from a company that I'm sure he doesn't want to do any more business with. He's unlikely to get any damages and Google's lawyers will ensure that it takes way too much time. "If they were innocent, why didn't they sue" is an opinion that is really naive of how our legal system works.
      - Alupis 4y ago
        The article is a little clumsy here... they seem to indicate it would have been a lawsuit, but the dollar amount quoted would be more in line with arbitration. In both cases there's 3 possible outcomes: 1) Google, after reviewing weak and/or zero evidence, backs down and restores the account upon receipt of notice of intent to pursue legal action. 2) Arbitration happens and Google is ordered to back down, restore the account and pay Dad's representation fees. 3) Arbitration happens and Dad loses, which yes would be quite costly. Only #3 is a gamble, and it seems like Dad has a lot of confidence #3 isn't even a remote possibility. So why would you not pursue legal action? Given how much attention Dad has received over this, it would be surprising if free representation wasn't throwing themselves at him by now too. Regardless, this is indeed how the legal system works for disputes. He should use it if he really is innocent.
- drited 4y ago
  >> Dad chose not do do any of that though... why? It says in the article that would have cost 7k.

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?
    - Alupis 4y ago
      He was not exonerated, that is not what this word means. The rest of your statement appears to be a straw man, because I have not once stated he is in fact a pedophile.
      - warbler73 4y ago
        You continue to insinuate it.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Are there any known examples of people using arbitrage to successfully recover their Google accounts?
    - Alupis 4y ago
      Arbitration is not public - so we would never know. That is not unique to Google either, it's just how it works. My guess would be it happens far more often that you might realize, given Google's scale and breadth of services offered (paid and unpaid). People have disputes all the time with big companies, and arbitration is how they are normally resolved. Arbitration is designed to 1) usually minimize the public risk to the company in the event of a loss, and 2) make the proceedings far more affordable for all parties involved. Arbitration carries all the same weight and enforcement of a real lawsuit, but takes less time and is less costly.
warbler73 4y ago
> 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. San Francisco Police Department: > “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. What more do you want from him Alupis? He was exonerated but you are suggesting he did not "do any of that" (false) to clear his name. Why would you say this given the article already rules it out?
- Alupis 4y ago
  He should use the legal system for what it was designed for - to settle a disagreement as per the ToS for his paid Google One account. The article even says this is an option - but he chose not to pursue it.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Because pursuing it would cost money and time for a service from a company that I'm sure he doesn't want to do any more business with. He's unlikely to get any damages and Google's lawyers will ensure that it takes way too much time. "If they were innocent, why didn't they sue" is an opinion that is really naive of how our legal system works.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      The article is a little clumsy here... they seem to indicate it would have been a lawsuit, but the dollar amount quoted would be more in line with arbitration. In both cases there's 3 possible outcomes: 1) Google, after reviewing weak and/or zero evidence, backs down and restores the account upon receipt of notice of intent to pursue legal action. 2) Arbitration happens and Google is ordered to back down, restore the account and pay Dad's representation fees. 3) Arbitration happens and Dad loses, which yes would be quite costly. Only #3 is a gamble, and it seems like Dad has a lot of confidence #3 isn't even a remote possibility. So why would you not pursue legal action? Given how much attention Dad has received over this, it would be surprising if free representation wasn't throwing themselves at him by now too. Regardless, this is indeed how the legal system works for disputes. He should use it if he really is innocent.
drited 4y ago
>> Dad chose not do do any of that though... why? It says in the article that would have cost 7k.