Hacker News Reader

Comment by GeekyBear | Hacker News Reader

> It's Google's servers. I imagine every content hosting company has a heuristics based approach to detecting CSAM.

The slippery slope claim made in the past was that they were only looking for files that match known examples of kiddie porn.

For instance, this tech from Microsoft:

>PhotoDNA creates a unique digital signature (known as a “hash”) of an image which is then compared against signatures (hashes) of other photos to find copies of the same image. When matched with a database containing hashes of previously identified illegal images, PhotoDNA is an incredible tool to help detect, disrupt and report the distribution of child exploitation material.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/photodna

Reporting parents to police because they took pictures of their child's first bath and those photos were automatically backed up to Google servers is much, much worse.

View on HN

Please stop using 'child's first bath' as an indicator of overreaction by the algorithm. It is not helpful to argue something which will make you look hyperbolic or histrionic once your argument is looked into.

1. The picture(s) in question mentioned above which got an account shut down and police notified was not a 'child in a bath', it was close ups of a child's genitals

2. You are probably not a parent since a child's 'first bath' is not a thing. They are bathed as infants starting immediately. If you are referring to a child's first independent bath, then no one should be taking pictures since private bathing is not something that should be intruded upon for picture taking

All that said, I agree with you.

> 1. The picture(s) in question mentioned above which got an account shut down and police notified was not a 'child in a bath', it was close ups of a child's genitals

No, the example of Google calling the police on a parent given in the NYT article was because the parent sought medical assistance for their child during lockdown and the doctor requested pictures of the issue the child was having.

This is no more an acceptable reason for Google to report parents to the police for child abuse than taking pictures of your child's first bath, and taking pictures of your child's milestones has long been something that people have done.

>> 1. The picture(s) in question mentioned above which got an account shut down and police notified was not a 'child in a bath', it was close ups of a child's genitals

> No, the example of Google calling the police on a parent given in the NYT article was because the parent sought medical assistance for their child during lockdown and the doctor requested pictures of the issue the child was having.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

Stop being defensive. It doesn't help you. I am trying to help you by telling you that you are making a shitty argument.

> I am trying to help you by telling you that you are making a shitty argument.

OK. Allow me to tell you that, in my opinion, you are the person making the shitty argument

Your argument that "no one should be taking pictures" of their child's first bath is just cringe-worthy.

Google is to blame for the situation when they call the police over a single false positive from their faulty algorithm, not parents who take pictures of their own children.

Are you even reading what I am writing? I never said that no one should take pictures of their children's first bath -- I said that there is no such thing as a child's first bath, just like there is no such thing as a child's first meal, or a child's first nap, or a child's first bowel movement. They are given baths as infants.

You are obviously either unable or unwilling to parse what I am trying to tell you, and fixated on this notion that you have to be 'right' no matter what even though I am not telling you that you are wrong!

I am at a loss as to what to reply to you with besides I urge you to read things before continuing to respond because otherwise you end up talking around people instead of with them.

Good day.

> 2. You are probably not a parent since a child's 'first bath' is not a thing. They are bathed as infants starting immediately. If you are referring to a child's first independent bath, then no one should be taking pictures since private bathing is not something that should be intruded upon for picture taking

Are you a parent? A prudish parent perhaps?

I have pictures of me as a kid in a bath (genitals obscured underwater). It's a common parental thing among parents who AREN'T DRIED UP PRUDES AND FRIGHTED OF NUDITY.

The bottom line is - another case of our ability to use our technology as we desire being interrupted and interfered with. I hate to even remotely invoke RMS, but... He wasn't wrong!

Please re-read what I wrote. Was it really unclear? I said that if a child is bathing independently that it is not appropriate to barge in and take pictures of them. They would be at least 5 or 6 years old at that point. Is that prudish? Why is everyone so emotional about this? All I said was that it was a terrible and inaccurate argument to talk about pictures of a child in a bath because that is not what flagged the algorithm and there is no such thing as a child's first bath.

Please try to parse a response before yelling at someone for something they didn't state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com