Forget that - Google states to the media they had reviewed the situation and had decided to uphold his ban.
Good luck convincing them to admit their “appeal” system, and their media review, were mistakes. Google is too arrogant for that.
Good luck convincing them to admit their “appeal” system, and their media review, were mistakes. Google is too arrogant for that.
> “I determined that the incident did not meet the elements of a crime and that no crime occurred,” Mr. Hillard wrote in his report. The police had access to all the information Google had on Mark and decided it did not constitute child abuse or exploitation.
> *The search, related to “child exploitation videos,” had taken place in February, within a week of his taking the photos of his son.*
So maybe no crime occurred, but google doesn't want that kind of user. I assume you can just type "child exploitation videos" into Google without breaking the law, but google may terminate your account.
I just want to know the context of that search that he made. It could very well be disqualifying, or it could be totally benign.
The point is that Google should have to say that, just like your water and electricity companies can't arbitrarily decide to stop serving you.
Perhaps there is more to the story than what the article lets on...perhaps not. We will never really know.
Also:
> we only have one side of the story here
In real court, if you don't show up to tell your side of the story, you're considered to be in the wrong by default. Why should the court of public opinion be any different, when Google has had the chance to tell their side but chose not to?
Ps. This “we will never really know” is triggered me. This phrase used by Russian propaganda when they got caught in crimes every damn time.
I'm not sure why we expect Google to provide transparency for CSAM bans/investigations. That would be highly irregular, and not just for Google.
The Dad has legal path(s) to take if he feels he was truly wronged. Paths that would ultimately cost nothing if he prevailed. Paths that would likely force Google to undo their decision if Dad's statements are in fact the truth and Google has no other data/evidence.
Dad chose not do do any of that though... why? I'm confident there are lawyers out there that would even represent Dad for free.
> This phrase used by Russian propaganda when they got caught in crimes every damn time.
What?
From the article there appears to be an arbitration path (based on the dollar amount quoted in the article, but they talk about it like it would be a lawsuit) - but Dad explicitly chose not to take it for some reason.
It would be very surprising if the ToS for Google Accounts didn't include an arbitration agreement.
Also, Dad had a paid Google One account - filled with apparently lots of data. He definitely has a legal path here and chose not to take it. Why?
My guess would be it happens far more often that you might realize, given Google's scale and breadth of services offered (paid and unpaid).
People have disputes all the time with big companies, and arbitration is how they are normally resolved. Arbitration is designed to 1) usually minimize the public risk to the company in the event of a loss, and 2) make the proceedings far more affordable for all parties involved.
Arbitration carries all the same weight and enforcement of a real lawsuit, but takes less time and is less costly.
San Francisco Police Department:
> “I determined that the incident did not meet the elements of a crime and that no crime occurred,” Mr. Hillard wrote in his report. The police had access to all the information Google had on Mark and decided it did not constitute child abuse or exploitation.
What more do you want from him Alupis? He was exonerated but you are suggesting he did not "do any of that" (false) to clear his name. Why would you say this given the article already rules it out?
"If they were innocent, why didn't they sue" is an opinion that is really naive of how our legal system works.
In both cases there's 3 possible outcomes:
1) Google, after reviewing weak and/or zero evidence, backs down and restores the account upon receipt of notice of intent to pursue legal action.
2) Arbitration happens and Google is ordered to back down, restore the account and pay Dad's representation fees.
3) Arbitration happens and Dad loses, which yes would be quite costly.
Only #3 is a gamble, and it seems like Dad has a lot of confidence #3 isn't even a remote possibility. So why would you not pursue legal action?
Given how much attention Dad has received over this, it would be surprising if free representation wasn't throwing themselves at him by now too. Regardless, this is indeed how the legal system works for disputes. He should use it if he really is innocent.
Hassle.
Some people would prefer to just have a clean break from any abusive relationship rather than continue to engage in conflict, even if the odds are good they'd win.
You also don't know what else is going on in his life and how much bandwidth he has left. One terminally sick relative is all it'll take for the average person to not want to deal with extra bullshit in their life.
And most people don't have their own personal legal department and may not even know a single lawyer, so they don't have any idea of who to trust. If a dozen lawyers called me up and offered their services the first headache I'm having is that I don't know if any of them are trustworthy, and now I need to waste my time vetting them.
So, I don't think hassle can accurately describe this particular case.
If he sues he's likely getting a pittance from whatever the court values his Google account to be worth. In reality this is never going to be a multi-million dollar award.
And I don't know what it is that you imagine he's done wrong which isn't criminal but which would allow Google to defend themselves. If it is anything I think it is more likely that he got legal advice that based on Google's TOS and the things that he agreed to (like we all do every time a legal notice pops up) that his chances of recovering any damages at all were a crapshoot.
There is no multi-million dollar award - this isn't a TV Show or something.
Arbitration would determine, after examining all facts presented by both parties, if his account should be re-instated. Further, if his account is ordered to be re-instated, he would be awarded "reasonable attorney's fees", which would cover the cost of any legal representation he hired to argue his case.
So yes, he needed to pursue the legal path here, but chose not to. The quoted dollar amount in the article is peanuts, and like previously stated over and over, if he's so certain of his innocence and has all this supporting evidence, arbitration would ultimately cost nothing. ie. there's no reason to not pursue the legal path here.
The claim is that he is a child pornographer and has taken sexually explicit photos of children for prurient purposes. There is no evidence of this and if Google had it they should report the evidence.
You instead keep repeating things like "if he's so certain of his innocence and has all this supporting evidence...", implying that since he is not suing Google that there must be something to this.
Your shtick here reminds me of Musk's accusations of pedophilia against Vernon Unsworth.
It says in the article that would have cost 7k.
Typically if you win arbitration or court, the losing party pays the lawyers anyway - so why did he not pursue this?
I think if someone was doing something criminal and their access was blocked, they will juat quietly walk away. But talking to the press? That would be a new level.
Police reviewed the case with full access to all documents and videos.
A reputable news organization contacted Google for comment.
There was all the opportunity to present "other side of story" by Google if any. And I actually think everybody in article goes out of their WAY to present the other side - they repeatedly call google's work important but difficult and offer several plausible non malevolent reasons for the behaviour.
I agree life is complex and we rarely get all the details, but even I don't agree with a completely defeatist "life is unknowable" attitude.