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