[johnmcarthur]

Google by not answering is giving a clear message: if you test positive, even if you are then cleared out of all wrongdoings, you are going to be banned for life. So better be extra careful and don't even take children's pictures, even if your own or in perfectly valid scenarios.

[candiodari]

The problem is, this isn't Google, this is the government. All platforms, even Apple, are doing this. They aren't doing it voluntarily either, they did this under direction of laws, or threats of measures against them, such as banning their platforms from large economic zones.

And the law is about to go much further:

https://www.wired.com/story/europe-csam-scanning-law-chat-en...

Note that these laws don't mention platforms by name. So not copying your chats and images to the authorities, even going so far as using an application you custom write for a particular conversation, from even social workers and certain (not even named) private organisations (not even just the police or justice departments) will be illegal regardless of the content. They haven't even bothered to list which institutions are to have access to your chats. Just "law enforcement". Do I need to copy Latvian law enforcement on a message I send from France to my wife in New York? It's actually not clear.

Any point where the law would require a little bit of effort by government, everything is left open. And these laws require a LOT of effort and infrastructure by governments to even enable citizens to comply with them.

Call me a cynic, but I find it very hard to believe EU or US citizens would vote for their private chats or pictures to be copied even to the police, or scanned for anything at all.

Never mind that, of course, said authorities haven't even bothered to make it possible for other platforms to do said reporting (I guess Facebook, Google and Amazon just find phone numbers to call somewhere, and then send unencrypted email with the material, because anything else just wouldn't work). Of course there is zero mention of what a person can do if such reporting mechanisms are used to discredit them (for example, send CSAM to your ex/political adversary, call the police on them).

And of course, the police, social workers' and other institutions reputations where it comes to helping victims of CSAM is beyond terrible. In a lot of countries, including the US, cases where people protect children against CPS, even in cases of abuse, are easy to find. The reason is the extremely bad treatment child victims receive once reported, in other words: these reports aren't helping the victims at all, and this is a problem well-known for decades. It's not likely to improve any time soon. Cases of children fighting against these institutions when they are the victim aren't just well known ... they're actually the norm, the expected outcome of such interventions.

I'm against conspiracy theories ... but I do agree with them on one point: I find it very hard to believe laws like this are even meant to protect anyone, other than the institutions stuff is being reported to themselves. If they were meant to protect, then we would make sure the treatment of children after reporting would be great, AND THEN go look for children in problem situations. The opposite is happening. You want my guess? These extreme measures are attempts to minimise the times government institutions get embarrassed by (the extremely rare cases of) serious crimes against children, which are still mostly missed.

[curmudgeon22]

Part of the problem IS google and their refusal to reinstate accounts once police cleared the accused:

> Mark asked if Mr. Hillard could tell Google that he was innocent so he could get his account back. “You have to talk to Google,” Mr. Hillard said, according to Mark. “There’s nothing I can do.” Mark appealed his case to Google again, providing the police report, but to no avail…

> A Google spokeswoman said the company stands by its decisions, even though law enforcement cleared the two men

[candiodari]

I don't think it is that simple. That the police don't "take" a complaint means nothing. A crime could still be committed. This means nothing.

Second, what is Google to do? Clearly the picture is not ok, I mean hopefully we can agree on that. Yes it isn't reason to suspect child abuse, but it isn't ok to spread either, which is of course what Google is worried about.

Going through the account and removing this picture is ... also very much not ok. Hell, not even just because of the privacy invasion that would be. On what basis would they declare things safe? There is no guidance in the law on what is allowed.

The government just throws the entire thorny problem on Google and then declares itself not available for comment.

So I don't see what you want Google to do here. I don't see what options they have. Restoring access to the account may be a crime for Google (that might turn out to be "knowingly" allowing the spread of CSAM). Going through the account and removing the material is fraught with problems too, starting with the impossibility for Google to declare material safe, as well as privacy issues.

[Blackstrat]

The key point, regardless of the subsequent disagreements about Apple, is that this involves the government. Consequently, it is easy to argue that Google and Big Tech aren't private companies and thus subject to the Bill of Rights.

[ec109685]

Apple is not doing proactive scanning of iCloud files or your chats.

[candiodari]

Then they're in violation of EU regulations. And while I grant you that for the moment this is probably true, Apple will lose this fight and start scanning chats and messages.

[djbebs]

Dont lie.

[bayindirh]

If he's lying, why not provide some pointers so we can check whether the GP is lying or not?