3 ms·

I think the base rate of people using GMail/Twitter to exchange child pornography is so low compared to the # of people sending pictures of their kids diaper ra

I think the base rate of people using GMail/Twitter to exchange child pornography is so low compared to the # of people sending pictures of their kids diaper rash to the grandmother to ask for advice that it's really hard for these automated systems to have a low false positive rate. Then you have to put a human in the loop who is now reading a bunch of your user's personal emails/messages which is a large invasion of privacy. Like two 16 years old sexting now being reviewed by some rep at Google. Meanwhile I assume most predator rings are using some kind of end to end encrypted platforms like whatsapp. I think probably the best way to break these rings up is by getting people to infiltrate them.

olliej 3y ago
Yup, and the penalty for an individual subjected to this is horrific (waiting for someone to sue Google or whomever for slander given that harm). The penalty for a company that fails to penalize "child abuse" is much harder. So the end result google is very aggressive in penalties, and interprets CSAM very broadly. We also need to recognize that while child abuse and similar is the angle be pushed here, governments and law enforcement do not actually consider sex crimes high priority unless they get press coverage (this is backed up by tens of thousands of untested rape kits in the US and similar countries, and whenever they're forced by a court to test any a small percentage of those they identify rapists and in some cases serial rapists). You get similar with "stop terrorism" claims: police need to demonstrate that they use the information they already receive before making claims that they need more. Finally, following the UK's IPA laws (to stop "terrorism", etc) it turns out they're mostly used for minor crimes (not picking up dog poop, not paying tv licensing fees, etc)

olliej 3y ago

Yup, and the penalty for an individual subjected to this is horrific (waiting for someone to sue Google or whomever for slander given that harm). The penalty for a company that fails to penalize "child abuse" is much harder. So the end result google is very aggressive in penalties, and interprets CSAM very broadly. We also need to recognize that while child abuse and similar is the angle be pushed here, governments and law enforcement do not actually consider sex crimes high priority unless they get press coverage (this is backed up by tens of thousands of untested rape kits in the US and similar countries, and whenever they're forced by a court to test any a small percentage of those they identify rapists and in some cases serial rapists). You get similar with "stop terrorism" claims: police need to demonstrate that they use the information they already receive before making claims that they need more. Finally, following the UK's IPA laws (to stop "terrorism", etc) it turns out they're mostly used for minor crimes (not picking up dog poop, not paying tv licensing fees, etc)