alt Hacker NewsNo but "They got banned for uploading child porn to Google Drive" is a correct framing and "google banned a developer for finding child porn" is incorrect.
There is important additional context around it, of course, which mitigates (should remove) any criminal legal implications, and should also result in google unsuspending his account in a reasonable timeframe but what happened is also reasonable. Google does automated scans of all data uploaded to drive and caught CP images being uploaded (presumably via hashes from something like NCMEC?) and banned the user. Totally reasonable thing. Google should have an appeal process where a reasonable human can look at it and say "oh shit the guy just uploaded 100m AI training images and 7 of them were CP, he's not a pedo, unban him, ask him not to do it again and report this to someone."
The headline frames it like the story was "A developer found CP in AI training data from google and banned him in retaliation for reporting it." Totally disingenuous framing of the situation.
Replies
[dead]
"There is important additional context around it, of course,"
Indeed, which is why a comment that has infinitely more room to expand on the context should include that context when they are criticizing the title for being misleading.
Both the title and the comment I replied to are misleading. One because of the framing, the other because of the deliberate exclusion of extremely important context.
Imagine if someone accused you of "Uploading CSAM to Google Drive" without any other context. It's one of the most serious accusations possible! Adding like five extra words of context to make it clear that you are not a pedophile trafficking CSAM is not that much of an ask.