I thought I'd create a forum page on a topic other than Trump Sucks! Trump is Great!
I was listening to NPR yesterday and they had this really interesting story. To sum it up, this couple's daughter had been sexually abused by her biological father when she was very young. The scumbag not only abused her, but took pictures and posted them to the internet.
Now, 9 years later, those pictures are still available and whenever anyone is caught with them, the couple is notified and can seek restitution from the person who had them.
The issue that comes up about this issue is regarding privacy. Only one provider actively tries to rid the internet of these photos/videos, and that is Facebook. The rest, like Amazon, claim privacy concerns. And, in fact, Facebook is likely to make this claim too.
So, do the privacy concerns of Facebook and Amazon trump the rights of victims? Should internet providers who provide storage be required to scan all photos so that authorities can make requests of them for things like child pornography?
How can we deal with issues like this so that there's some way for victims of such crimes to remove those photos from the internet?
Great question, Crank. From everything I read, I think law enforcement is working harder than ever to stop child pornography.
It won't end overnight. But the trend is moving in the right direction.
I think this is a broader question than that. Do you support forcing these companies to find this stuff and violate these privacy agreements?
I would disagree with this; if we wish private companies to be responsible for enforcing the law then we should be hiring them to do just that. To require ANY company to be responsible, at their expense and effort, for enforcing the laws we make is not reasonable.
Wilderness, how is that any different than a tavern keeper involved in keeping minors outside his or her place of business or not serving them alcohol?
uh oh, you might want to rethink that one. In the context of this discussion, I think your "enforce the law" is the same as follow the law.
I think Credence2's comment completes my thought.
Seems to me it can only be "follow" if we decide that anything on FB's servers belongs to them. The way it is set up that isn't true, so to require that they enforce the law as to what others post is not right. Seems to me.
I am also very much against censorship...which is in total opposition to my feelings on child porn. Not sure how to resolve that, except to agree that some things need censored and hope that cracking the lid on the can doesn't simply remove the lid and pour out the contents. Either way, though, it is not the job of FB, as it stands, to provide that censorship. That job belongs to the government.
Oh Buggers! Now I have drawn us into the debate of whether they, (Facebook et al), are publishers, or a platform for publishers.
And even worse, to continue would hijack the thread into a discussion of the limits and responsibilities of censorship. Our thoughts are not dissimilar enough for me to go there.
Technology can do a lot. Should we require these storage companies - Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft - to search their databases for child pornography and identify those who have it?
I think those "storage companies" do have some responsibility for content placed on their platforms. To go further with that thought would require first a definition of child porn, (no, I am not splitting hairs, I can imagine some seeing a father wiping a toddler's butt as child porn), and secondly, settlement of the discussion of what is acceptable, and expected, censorship.
So pretty interesting subject then, no? I agree with your assessment overall.
However, most of the storage firms do not and a great many people do not, citing privacy concerns.
For instance, if you have child pornography in your home, the police and/or the government cannot just break down your doors without cause and search your home, can they? And we don't want them to, right?
In the case of storing your digital assets, why should the police or government be able to break into your online files without cause? What we're talking about, basically, is allowing the government to look inside your house without cause.
Falls into kind of a classic liberal/conservative discussion.
That wasn't at all the direction of my comment. It wasn't about privacy. It was about public display. It is my opinion that once you put something out in public you have relinquished your right of privacy—regarding that which you submitted to public view.
Perhaps an analogy would be a storefront poster. If you had a rolled-up child porn poster in your house, folks probably don't mind—because they don't know about it, and never will until you run afoul of the law and your house gets searched. Until then your privacy is assured.
But, once you put that poster in a storefront window you have given up that privacy right—for that poster, and the store owner has a responsibility to take that poster down from public view because child porn is illegal.
If the issue were as cleanly clear as that I wouldn't any concerns with censorship or privacy issues. But obviously they aren't. Doesn't it go something like; "One man's porn is another man's art?"
Can we ask facebook to censor a lewd* Stormy Danials image but leave a Michelangelo, (credit: Wilderness), nude in place? Or to censor a Russian-sponsored opinion but leave a Democrat-sponsored one alone?
And it gets even stickier when our demand is that those "storage companies" become arbiters of truth. Whose truth? The Republican's truth that the economy is booming, or the Democrats' truth that our Constitution is being destroyed?
And even worse still is the idea that these decisions can be put into algorithms. Who will put in the rules the algorithms use to define 'truth'?
*who gets to define lewd?
Okay, what about the person who simply has these child porn pics in their personal possession?
The argument of the family is that they want these things gone and Amazon/Google/Microsoft have the power to get rid of them.
I think I see that I was addressing a different idea than you intended with your OP.
It sounds like you are talking about a specific case. Or at least, not a case of public promotion by the owner/author. Assuming you are speaking of someone's 'private' data that is only being stored—not displayed or distributed, then my first thought is that the storage companies have no responsibility, or authority, to censor that data.
They may have the power, but I can't see any justification for the authority.
But, let's make it a more specific and tricky scenario. If, the data/image was not the original creation of the one storing it, (for instance, if it was a family image that was taken from the 'Net without permission), then I could see a justification for the "storage company" removing it. Almost like a copyright-infringement justification.
So Good Morning America can show porno on TV to boost ratings?
One person's porno is another's art, setting aside the whole "child porno" thing.
Given that, yes. Good Morning American can show porno on TV...or would you rather throw the CEO in prison for showing a pic of Michelangelo's "David"?
The whole "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it" is more than a little inadequate. Even when used by a member of SCOTUS it is ridiculous as a useful part of law.
(As an aside, I don't find your question to have anything at all to do with child pornography.)
Why not? Aren't companies (platforms) ultimately responsible for what they allow on their sites? I understand that individuals are "publishing", but once child pornography is published, regardless of who did it, it's on YOUR platform, and arguably, regardless of the terms you have with those who're publishing, you (platform) are partly accountable.
Well considering Amazon did allow the book "how to be a pedophile" to be sold on their site for awhile with no concerns whatsoever, I'm not surprised.
Honestly I'm not sure how to answer your question because even if sites like Amazon, Facebook and etc do all scan photos for the authorities to request on demand, it's not going to stop photos like that from leaking online. Plus there are vpn services out there that can block a person's location from the authorities as well.
Plus even if they do take down the photo from the site, there's no guarantee those same photos won't pop up somewhere else as the internet is forever. Even if you delete something on it, the thing you delete never truly goes away because people can screenshot conversations and whatnot even before you erase what you post or say so I'm not sure what to tell you. I do feel bad for victims like that.
Heck I have a friend of mine who was a victim as well whom I brought up in another comment thread awhile back so I can certainly understand how frustrating it can be when assholes get away with shit.
I think the war on child pornography is a bit like the war on drugs. The more you try to fight it, the more you create a market for it.
Now, I'm definitely not saying normalize it by any standard so please don't misconstrue that last statement, but I am saying that companies such as Facebook and Amazon are required to relinquish any information they have depending on the laws of the area in which their servers are based. Often this leads to the arrest of individuals who used the platform for illegal doings, and the relinquishing of all information available to the site to the agency that requests it.
So if the servers are in an area like, say, Serbia then the content stored on those servers are subject to the laws of Serbia.
Attacking or otherwise disparaging the companies who are simply using the law to their advantage, like any good business does, is counter-intuitive to combating child pornography and the criminals who concern themselves with it.
I would also like to add that both of these companies have an automated process that works in conjunction with the algorithms of other companies, like Google, to auto-identify and disable the accounts of the perpetrator sending the files. Send a picture, that those algorithms recognize the exif data of, and say goodbye to your account access forever, though they will keep the content in case of proper legal action against you.
by Eric Calderwood 10 years ago
Do privacy concerns influence your voting habits?Even though I am a member of one of the two major political parties, in the coming presidential election I will probably not be voting for either of the two major candidates. This is partly because of privacy concerns (concerns about government...
by justchillin 4 years ago
So Facebook is worth billions of dollars, still thinking of a way to sue Zuckerberg, I will only claim a million dollars, pocket change for Facebook. Anyways according to the news report below this guys says he is owed 84% of Facebook.Man Claims he is entitled to 84% of Facebook
by girly_girl09 13 years ago
I was wondering if there is anyway for blogspot/blogger owners to see that I visited their blog, when I've been logged in under my account. Example, if I visit blog A, will the blog A owner be able to see that someone owning blogs B & C(my blogs) visited their blog? Will my e-mail address or...
by dorothy1961 13 years ago
What privacy concerns exist using smart card technology?
by Tammy Barnette 10 years ago
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574549 … ensorship/"Google reports it has seen an "alarming" incidence in government requests to censor Internet content in the past six months." "The Web giant said it received more than 1,000 requests from governments around the...
by Misbah Sheikh 19 months ago
Hello Beautiful souls,I have a question, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.Why does HubPages allow people outside of HP to view our activity log and let them send us emails? Wouldn't it be nice to have some privacy? I mean only if people who are logged in can see our activities, and only if...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|