xeni reported it about it a few years ago. I think I could trade my sanity for a year for a google contractor paycheck. Sad but true, thank you econopocalypse. http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/tech-confessional-the-googler-who-looks-at-the-wo
3 Likes
That article is so ill-written that Iâm not going to conclude Google violated anyoneâs privacy. If it was triggered by an sha1 sum of a picture file matching known child porn, then there was no need to look at the picture at all. At most, they could look at the EXIF metadata and see whether that matched too. Iâll wait for a report by someone with a clue.
This happened to you? Did they prosecute?
That was syntactically ambiguous. None of this happened to me. To me, it sounds like that is what happened. clearer?
6 Likes
I think that itâs safe to assume that most active child pornographers have more than a few issues.
3 Likes
This analogy makes no sense and Iâm not clear on the point you were trying to make.
Even if Google had inspectors reviewing every square-inch of Google Earthâs photos, there was nothing obviously objectionable in the photo you mention.
What made that photo problematic was the context of a father knowing where his son was murdered, going online to look at that very spot in a satellite image, finding a photo of the active crime scene, and knowing what he was looking atâŚ
Also, they took it down themselvesâŚ
7 Likes
I, for one, am NOT sure that this is a good thing. While, yes, I think we should be working to stop child pornographers, Iâm not sure I want to build a panopticon to do it, and I donât want the government and our largest and most ubiquitous tech giant, which can monitor basically everything we do on the Internet, to be cooperating to do it.
Sure, this is uncontroversial. Who doesnât hate a child pornographer? And then: who doesnât hate a terrorist? And then: who doesnât hate a drug dealer? And then, and then.
3 Likes
Iâm not sure how a murder victim lying perpetually in the same state is not obviously objectionable, but to each his own. They took it down after being asked, but they didnât even monitor their own imagery. That was the point. I know you wonât see it that way, so this is wasted breath.
âŚand then cheating on your taxes, or your wifeâŚ
Clearly you need to widen your circle of nerd friends.
1 Like
I, for one, donât want that job. I saw one image one time on 4chan and that was enough for my lifetime.
1 Like
The photo is not obviously of a crime scene with a murdered body. To understand what you are seeing requires supplemental information. Reviewing the photograph alone is not enough to conclude that it is objectionable. Had a human, or a team of humans, been tasked with reviewing every satellite photo posted to Google Earth, this photo would still not have been flagged.
8 Likes
Yes, one can easily imagine that someone with a sexual attraction to children would be drawn towards âinspectingâ child pornography. Itâs a pretty obvious connection.
My understanding from talking to a couple cops whoâve worked on computer crime is that if a cop ever asks or hints that they want to work on busting child pornographers, in any competently run department that instantly sends up huge red flares, and the Internal Affairs department immediately starts taking a very close look at that guy. Those who do end up working in that area are usually âdraftedâ into it, not volunteers, and get used to the idea of being under close scrutiny. Iâm still there are still a few who are drawn to it instead of repelled.
Guy: âKidding, I actually work for the IRS.â
Girl: âGet away from me! I have mace!â
1 Like
Iâm sure you mean âbad drugsâ. 
1 Like
"itâs good to know that Google assigns individual humans to inspect our naked children for the authoritiesâ consideration. "
As opposed to hoping that somebody can create an automated child-porn identification algorithm that will magically be free of false positives? They check to be sure theyâre not accidentally dropping a witch-hunt on somebodyâs head.
1 Like
They actually checked every CD that someone brought into the country? That takes some serious dedication.
Nothing in the image you refer to made it obvious that one was looking at a crime scene. Without further information itâs not even obvious that it was a human body.
No automated process - and yes, thatâs the only plausible way to do these things - could have flagged the image.
1 Like
Thatâs the FBIâs job, not a Google employee. And it isnât fun, some is very terrible and would turn you to self harm if you have a soul.
1 Like
what about having cp convicts review the pictures? kinda like how holland pays drunks in beer to clean the streets. that way nobodyâs mental state is any more disturbed at the end of the day and you give the cp convicts a way to make a living / give back to the community. Plus you would think it would be like having ice cream every day all day maybe they will get sick of it after a while.
win win.
