Re:Google refuses to reinstate account after man took medica...
by sverhagen on Tuesday August 23, 2022 @01:55AM
(#32560918)
You are playing devil's advocate against the current legal situation. I don't agree, but fine. But you're responding to the suggestion to make a legal change, this legal change presumably would put a liability on these kinds of false positives too. One of the two could still have stiffer sanctions, and cause Google to prefer the other, but the idea is at least that this choice wouldn't be that obvious anymore.
Re:Google refuses to reinstate account after man took medica...
by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday August 23, 2022 @02:03AM
(#32560958)
I agree with you. I’m arguing one could likely get Google to back a reasonable proposal.
Re:Google refuses to reinstate account after man took medica...
by ClumsyPilot on Tuesday August 23, 2022 @05:19AM
(#32562328)
> they got the call wrong, Google would not only be liable for damages, the individuals involved could be criminally charged.
So how come this has never happened?
Google and Facebook have existed for decades, and so has CP, they didn't have automatic detection untill decently and yet none of their employees have ever been charged.
Playing devil’s advocate, possession of CP is criminal with absolute liability [1]. Deleting someone’s account, far from it. (Civil. Maybe.)
Weighing someone who might have CP, even to an absurdly low probability, against them being suing and like two people deleting their Gmail accounts, I can see how someone chose the former. If they got the call wrong, Google would not only be liable for damages, the individuals involved could be criminally charged.
I’m assuming everyone in this chain would appreciate laws clarifying an email bill of rights. On the other hand, Google made their bed with its surveillance-first culture.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_liability