5 ms·

If you're Google and you bust someone for having child porn, you shouldn't have to keep hosting child porn. Maybe a mandated period to download your data when y

If you're Google and you bust someone for having child porn, you shouldn't have to keep hosting child porn. Maybe a mandated period to download your data when you get locked out and put in read-only. Say they have to give you a month. And closing off the visibility of your content to others, obviously

aaomidi 1y ago
Honestly, I'm not going to entertain these hypotheticals. Given that Google has banned an account of a dad for having pictures of his son he was going to share with his doctor under the reasoning of "CSAM" I don't trust Google to be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner.
- sebstefan 1y ago
  They're not hypotheticals. Google is big. It happens every day. It's reasonable for Google to have automated systems for this, reasonable to deny service arbitrarily, and they should not obligated to provide customer support. They're a bad service in a competitive market for the cloud. So don't use their services. The point being that, assholes or not, while you shouldn't be entitled to their service, you should be entitled to your data, and deleting it arbitrarily should be considered infringing on that.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    reasonable to deny service arbitrarily it's not. and at least in germany you are able to take google to court over this. they should not obligated to provide customer support in the EU the right to speak to a human to resolve issues is mandated by law. so they are obligated to provide customer support.
dns_snek 1y ago
What a ridiculous straw man, nobody has argued that Google should be forced to host child porn. When we sign up, the deal is that they store our data securely and indefinitely as long as we pay for the service. Why should they be allowed to unilaterally break contracts and set deadlines that wipe out our data without a legal due process after paying them for 30 years? We supposedly live in a democracy where we should have laws that the common person wants, so I'm asking you, why should we be happy with your version of the law? Why shouldn't we demand a law that prohibits them from wiping our data without a court decision or a signed waiver from the account owner? Failing that, they should be on the hook for compensation of 10 times of the total amount we paid for the service since inception, or $1 million* (for the sake of the argument), whichever is higher.
- sebstefan 1y ago
  Where's the straw man? If you discuss "banning banning accounts", this is one (edge?) case. >"Why should they be allowed to unilaterally break contracts" In the case of the user infringing on the terms of service, they're just backing out through the regular exit clause following a breach that was on your end. Without breach of service, in most legislations contracts with an indefinite duration must have provisions that allow either party to terminate the contract with reasonable notice. Forcing them to hold onto your stuff for a month until you can figure out another provider or a way to self-host is reasonable notice. Maybe 3 months? A year? >Why shouldn't we demand a law that prohibits them from wiping our data without a court decision or a signed waiver from the account owner? Because that would be a burden for anyone willing to launch software that host any kind of user data
  - em-bee 1y ago
    that would be a burden for anyone willing to launch software that host any kind of user data if dealing with consumers is a burden, then you should not start a business. the same argument is being made against right to repair and having spare parts available or against the ability to download all your data. or have it deleted. and yet that is being made law in several places. any provision to protect consumers is a burden. that is a non-argument. the question here is one of balance and appropriateness. if you go bankrupt, storing and making the data available for all users for another year is a burden. but if you have millions of users, keeping the data around for a few blocked users until their violation can be proven is not a burden. especially because you can potentially still continue to charge for the subscription.
    - sebstefan 1y ago
      >the same argument is being made against right to repair and having spare parts available Just as valid back then. There's nothing wrong with the argument. You have to evaluate it every time. For right to repair we just decided it was worth it. I don't think this is worth it. A few months to dl your stuff is enough. Companies shouldn't need to host things that go against their terms of service when they ban you for infringing on their terms of service. It would be nonsense.
lesostep 1y ago
>> you bust someone for having child porn, you shouldn't have to keep hosting child porn. Alternative question: if Google decides I had child porn on my account and deletes it, how can I prove that it wasn't a child porn? It's my data, and until someone proves in court that the law was broken, how can they delete it on a basis of breaking the law? It would be offensive even if it happened due to human misunderstanding, but getting banned on an account I paid for, because their algorithms are shit -- that's beyond any reason.
- hbn 1y ago
  Funny example of Google banning account over what they determined to be CSAM. I specifically remember Google banning a father because they detected medical photos of his son that were for his doctor. And then refused to reinstate his account! https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-csam-account-blocked https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs...
- sebstefan 1y ago
  You'd expect that there should be a support line and you should be able to resolve it by reaching a human but Google sucks For stuff like email and cloud there are plenty of alternatives and no dominance of a single company over the market, so I believe that it would be a bridge too far to mandate Google to provide support or "banning banning accounts" Rather just they hold onto banned people's data for a while and let them download it

aaomidi 1y ago

Honestly, I'm not going to entertain these hypotheticals. Given that Google has banned an account of a dad for having pictures of his son he was going to share with his doctor under the reasoning of "CSAM" I don't trust Google to be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

sebstefan 1y ago
They're not hypotheticals. Google is big. It happens every day. It's reasonable for Google to have automated systems for this, reasonable to deny service arbitrarily, and they should not obligated to provide customer support. They're a bad service in a competitive market for the cloud. So don't use their services. The point being that, assholes or not, while you shouldn't be entitled to their service, you should be entitled to your data, and deleting it arbitrarily should be considered infringing on that.
- em-bee 1y ago
  reasonable to deny service arbitrarily it's not. and at least in germany you are able to take google to court over this. they should not obligated to provide customer support in the EU the right to speak to a human to resolve issues is mandated by law. so they are obligated to provide customer support.

dns_snek 1y ago

What a ridiculous straw man, nobody has argued that Google should be forced to host child porn. When we sign up, the deal is that they store our data securely and indefinitely as long as we pay for the service. Why should they be allowed to unilaterally break contracts and set deadlines that wipe out our data without a legal due process after paying them for 30 years? We supposedly live in a democracy where we should have laws that the common person wants, so I'm asking you, why should we be happy with your version of the law? Why shouldn't we demand a law that prohibits them from wiping our data without a court decision or a signed waiver from the account owner? Failing that, they should be on the hook for compensation of 10 times of the total amount we paid for the service since inception, or $1 million* (for the sake of the argument), whichever is higher.

sebstefan 1y ago
Where's the straw man? If you discuss "banning banning accounts", this is one (edge?) case. >"Why should they be allowed to unilaterally break contracts" In the case of the user infringing on the terms of service, they're just backing out through the regular exit clause following a breach that was on your end. Without breach of service, in most legislations contracts with an indefinite duration must have provisions that allow either party to terminate the contract with reasonable notice. Forcing them to hold onto your stuff for a month until you can figure out another provider or a way to self-host is reasonable notice. Maybe 3 months? A year? >Why shouldn't we demand a law that prohibits them from wiping our data without a court decision or a signed waiver from the account owner? Because that would be a burden for anyone willing to launch software that host any kind of user data
- em-bee 1y ago
  that would be a burden for anyone willing to launch software that host any kind of user data if dealing with consumers is a burden, then you should not start a business. the same argument is being made against right to repair and having spare parts available or against the ability to download all your data. or have it deleted. and yet that is being made law in several places. any provision to protect consumers is a burden. that is a non-argument. the question here is one of balance and appropriateness. if you go bankrupt, storing and making the data available for all users for another year is a burden. but if you have millions of users, keeping the data around for a few blocked users until their violation can be proven is not a burden. especially because you can potentially still continue to charge for the subscription.
  - sebstefan 1y ago
    >the same argument is being made against right to repair and having spare parts available Just as valid back then. There's nothing wrong with the argument. You have to evaluate it every time. For right to repair we just decided it was worth it. I don't think this is worth it. A few months to dl your stuff is enough. Companies shouldn't need to host things that go against their terms of service when they ban you for infringing on their terms of service. It would be nonsense.

lesostep 1y ago

>> you bust someone for having child porn, you shouldn't have to keep hosting child porn. Alternative question: if Google decides I had child porn on my account and deletes it, how can I prove that it wasn't a child porn? It's my data, and until someone proves in court that the law was broken, how can they delete it on a basis of breaking the law? It would be offensive even if it happened due to human misunderstanding, but getting banned on an account I paid for, because their algorithms are shit -- that's beyond any reason.

hbn 1y ago
Funny example of Google banning account over what they determined to be CSAM. I specifically remember Google banning a father because they detected medical photos of his son that were for his doctor. And then refused to reinstate his account! https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-csam-account-blocked https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs...
sebstefan 1y ago
You'd expect that there should be a support line and you should be able to resolve it by reaching a human but Google sucks For stuff like email and cloud there are plenty of alternatives and no dominance of a single company over the market, so I believe that it would be a bridge too far to mandate Google to provide support or "banning banning accounts" Rather just they hold onto banned people's data for a while and let them download it