4 ms·

I understand how the system can lead to people losing access to their Google account, GP suggested people could lose access to their children. The NYT article i

I understand how the system can lead to people losing access to their Google account, GP suggested people could lose access to their children. The NYT article is the opposite of what GP claimed - the case was closed before he even knew it had been opened.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
Imagine you are in the middle of a custody battle when this news comes down, or that you are jailed before being cleared. Imagine the cops and social workers in your city aren't diligent, or that you already have a criminal record. And further imagine you don’t have the luxury of a New York Times reporter investigating your case and writing publicly about how you’re innocent. The NYT example is a best case outcome for an innocent person who triggers these algorithms.
- ChrisKnott 3y ago
  I guess my point is I don't see how your "jailed before being cleared" example could ever reasonably happen. The NYT is a best case, but also an average case, and in fact any other outcome would be absurd.
  - yukkuri 3y ago
    The system isn't reasonable, so your denial based on what you think can "reasonably" happen is just your privilege talking.
    - ChrisKnott 3y ago
      That might be the case, but there would still be examples of it happening to other people, wouldn't there?
      - tremon 3y ago
        Re: unreasonable system, would you accept as evidence the 1115 children that were removed from their parents because the Dutch IRS labeled the parents as fraudsters (due to a biased and discriminatory AI system, of course)? https://www.bnnvara.nl/artikelen/hoe-konden-1115-kinderen-van-het-toeslagenschandaal-uit-huis-geplaatst-worden https://www.bnnvara.nl/artikelen/hoe-konden-1115-kinderen-va...
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I think your understanding of the common vs. uncommon cases here is out of whack. The common case is that parents who have done nothing wrong lose their children for days or weeks (at best) before things are resolved in their favor. And then there's of course the (less-common, but happens often enough to be troubling) situation where parents lose their children and never get them back, even though they're innocent of causing any harm. Note that I'm talking about the broader effect of Child Protective Services when they investigate any kind of reported abuse, not just CSAM possession/distribution.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

Imagine you are in the middle of a custody battle when this news comes down, or that you are jailed before being cleared. Imagine the cops and social workers in your city aren't diligent, or that you already have a criminal record. And further imagine you don’t have the luxury of a New York Times reporter investigating your case and writing publicly about how you’re innocent. The NYT example is a best case outcome for an innocent person who triggers these algorithms.

ChrisKnott 3y ago
I guess my point is I don't see how your "jailed before being cleared" example could ever reasonably happen. The NYT is a best case, but also an average case, and in fact any other outcome would be absurd.
- yukkuri 3y ago
  The system isn't reasonable, so your denial based on what you think can "reasonably" happen is just your privilege talking.
  - ChrisKnott 3y ago
    That might be the case, but there would still be examples of it happening to other people, wouldn't there?
    - tremon 3y ago
      Re: unreasonable system, would you accept as evidence the 1115 children that were removed from their parents because the Dutch IRS labeled the parents as fraudsters (due to a biased and discriminatory AI system, of course)? https://www.bnnvara.nl/artikelen/hoe-konden-1115-kinderen-van-het-toeslagenschandaal-uit-huis-geplaatst-worden https://www.bnnvara.nl/artikelen/hoe-konden-1115-kinderen-va...
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think your understanding of the common vs. uncommon cases here is out of whack. The common case is that parents who have done nothing wrong lose their children for days or weeks (at best) before things are resolved in their favor. And then there's of course the (less-common, but happens often enough to be troubling) situation where parents lose their children and never get them back, even though they're innocent of causing any harm. Note that I'm talking about the broader effect of Child Protective Services when they investigate any kind of reported abuse, not just CSAM possession/distribution.