[gjsman-1000]

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.

[googlryas]

Wasn't there something like the guy searching for CP before the photo was uploaded, or something along those lines?

[josephcsible]

No.

> “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.

[googlryas]

> It contained a letter informing him that he had been investigated as well as copies of the search warrants served on Google and his internet service provider. An investigator, whose contact information was provided, had asked for everything in Mark’s Google account: his internet searches, his location history, his messages and any document, photo and video he’d stored with the company.

> *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.

[29083011397778]

You man the search into his account by the San Fransisco PD? Who later cleared him of any wrongdoing? Note that Google, after hearing from the police, stood by their choice as well.

[googlryas]

Right. Google never said you get to keep your account unless you do something illegal. Which is why the terms of service are there.

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.

[29083011397778]

I strongly suspect we're talking past each other. The man under investigation didn't make "a search" that Google deemed unsavoury. The police department conducted a search of his account, looking for any additional examples of child pornography or abuse. You're confusing who actually performed the search (SFPD, not Mark), as well as what the search was for (searching through Mark's Google account photos, documents, and more, not Mark making a Google search).

[josephcsible]

> Google never said you get to keep your account unless you do something illegal.

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.

[iso1631]

Innocent until proven guilty, except when it comes to men being wrongfully accused of child porn

[Alupis]

It might be worth remembering we only have one side of the story here. How do we know we can thoroughly trust the Dad any more than we can thoroughly trust Google? Perhaps there are more pictures Dad took the article doesn't know about? Perhaps Google can't verify it was indeed Dad's child in the images?

Perhaps there is more to the story than what the article lets on...perhaps not. We will never really know.

[josephcsible]

The police investigated and verified that Google's accusations were completely false.

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?

[Alupis]

Frankly, the "court of public opinion" is the only court where facts don't matter, only opinion. This is a clear legal issue, and you will never hear the actual outcome.

[para_parolu]

We have one side of the story because the other side (huge corporation) didn’t give any information and decided to keep ban. No transparency there.

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.

[Alupis]

> We have one side of the story because the other side (huge corporation) didn’t give any information and decided to keep ban. No transparency there.

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?

[warbler73]

> 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.

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?

[Alupis]

He should use the legal system for what it was designed for - to settle a disagreement as per the ToS for his paid Google One account. The article even says this is an option - but he chose not to pursue it.

[lamontcg]

Because pursuing it would cost money and time for a service from a company that I'm sure he doesn't want to do any more business with. He's unlikely to get any damages and Google's lawyers will ensure that it takes way too much time.

"If they were innocent, why didn't they sue" is an opinion that is really naive of how our legal system works.

[gambiting]

Really? What kind of paths? Gmail isn't a paid service - you can't force Google to continue providing you with Gmail access if they don't want to, I can't believe any court would agree to such a thing. They reserve the right to terminate your access for any reason,and since you don't have a business relationship with them in this case I wonder what could you possibly claim in front of the judge to make them reverse this decision by law.

[Alupis]

This isn't about a free GMail account...

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?

[warbler73]

Why do you continue to insinuate this man may be a pedophile when he has been completely exonerated?

[int_19h]

Are there any known examples of people using arbitrage to successfully recover their Google accounts?

[drited]

>> Dad chose not do do any of that though... why?

It says in the article that would have cost 7k.

[NikolaNovak]

This is not unknowable.

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.

[loeg]

SFPD investigated the other photos, too, and determined there was no crime.

[bawolff]

This is always true, and a fundamental reason why free societies adopted the notion of open courts: to ensure that all sides of the story are known and innocent people don't suffer based on ifs and maybes.

[Alupis]

The Dad appears to have chosen not to sue Google for some reason. The dollar amount quoted in the article is peanuts for what these things normally cost, making it sound more like an arbitration thing.

Typically if you win arbitration or court, the losing party pays the lawyers anyway - so why did he not pursue this?

[drewmol]

Google seemed to review the images and determine they were for the reason he explained, but the video of his wife naked in the bed with his son seemed to be what was still considered an issue. Perhaps they were asleep while he filmed the video?

[rokhayakebe]

How can we trust the dad?

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.