Comment by chasil
4 years ago
The article mentions two independent instances of this process within Google, where appeal is not possible even with a police report that completely exonerates the suspect.
It sounds to me as if a class action lawsuit is the most appropriate remedy for the unfortunates who are caught in this predicament. Their only problem is finding each other.
For the rest of us, it is unwise to use cloud storage for photos, for several reasons.
They don’t block CSAM because “it’s illegal” - in fact, they can’t be forced to do it without it breaking your 4th amendment rights. Instead, all CSAM reporting and blocking is done at-will by these companies, and some don’t participate (Apple[0]), so it’s a policy decision by these companies.
I imagine unblocking someone due to them being exonerated by a government entity is legally risky - perhaps doing so would be considered enough proof/evidence to deem the entire CSAM scanning practice as a search/seizure at the request of the government.
0: https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On... • “ According to NCMEC, I submitted 608 reports to NCMEC in 2019, and 523 reports in 2020. In those same years, Apple submitted 205 and 265 reports (respectively). It isn't that Apple doesn't receive more picture than my service, or that they don't have more CP than I receive. Rather, it's that they don't seem to notice and therefore, don't report.”
With FOSTA/SESTA, Congress found what appears to be a highly effective 1st/4th amendment bypass: companies do not receive section 230 immunity for “sex trafficking” material. The government doesn’t say “thou shalt delete,” it just makes companies civilly liable for whatever happens on their platforms, which could be a death sentence at their scale. This has been overwhelmingly effective at censoring anything that even looks like sex work, no matter how consensual. If the intent was to continue protecting human trafficking cartels from modern competition while proving a viable means of censorship, it has been overwhelmingly effective.
EARN IT threatens to expand this to CSAM. Meanwhile, anti-CSAM legislation continues to develop in other jurisdictions, and being global entities big tech companies are exposed to that risk. Hence why Apple published explicit plans to actively scan (albeit locally on-device and with creative use of cryptography to soften the blow) for CSAM on their devices, and integrate with NCMEC. They’ve shelved this for now, but made it clear that they’re not done with this concept.
Big tech dreads the loss of their liability shield, and these measures are an attempt to stay ahead of the policymakers. It’s not as free a choice as it may appear, and the federal government does not appear restrained by the constitution here.
Google isn’t the government, they are a third party who you provide data to. 4th amendment doesn’t apply.
The argument was Google cannot be legally compelled to do so (hence the violation), but they are voluntarily doing so while some others do not.
1 reply →
How can data/files stored on somebody else's computer be subject to 4th amendment rights?
It seems like any agent holding any property on anyone's behalf should be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. "Their effects"
Why would it matter where it's held?
2 replies →
It’s legal for Google to give up user data (under their privacy policy), but the government can’t search them for a user’s data without a warrant.
It would certainly be a rolling back of the farce that is Third Party Doctrine. That's for sure.
It’s unwise to depend on Google with decades of history of poor customer service.
Funny how their motto used to be "Don't be Evil."
This isn’t Google being “evil” just incompetent. During their entire history, they’ve had one successful product - advertising.
No Android has not been a financial success. It came out in the Oracle trial that Android had only made Google $27 Billion in profit from its inception through the trial start date.
For comparison, Google pays Apple a reported $14 Billion a year to be the default search engine on iOS devices. Apple makes more in mobile from Google than Google makes from Android.
9 replies →
To be fair, users of many internet services exposed themselves. The warnings about that were loud and clear. I don't know if using their free service counts as a formal business relationship, that might make recourse more difficult. I think the service provider has the right to close any and all relationships unilaterally.
Cloud storage for anything valuable.
Note that it was the telehealth provider who provided the images to Google in the first place, not the SF techie dad.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've been doing it a lot and we ban that sort of account because we're trying for a different sort of forum here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html