Google Aims To Cull Child Porn By Algorithm, Not Human Review

According to a story at VentureBeat, "Google is working on a new database of flagged images of child porn and abuse that can be shared with other search engines and child protection organizations. The database will help create systems that automatically eliminate that sort of content. ... If the database is used effectively, any flagged image in the database would not be searchable through participating search engines or web hosting providers. And maybe best of all, computers will automatically flag and remove these images without any human needing to see them." Here's the announcement.

Comments

What is the point of this?

[Electricity Likes Me]

What is the point of automatically removing child porn so it's not searchable. That's not the problem with child porn.

The problem with child porn is real children are being really abused to make it.

Making it "not searchable" doesn't stop that. Arresting the people who are making it does.

Re:What is the point of this?

[ebno-10db]

True, which means this isn't a solution. It is about as much as a search engine can do though, so it's to Google's credit.

Re:What is the point of this?

[Errol backfiring]

if the algorithm finds something, it will warm law enforcement.

I may not always agree with law enforcement, but I do not think they are THAT corrupt.

Re:What is the point of this?

[ebno-10db]

Realistically this is just a feel good effort. No one is going to seriously criticize Google for this, and they can say "we're doing our part". Not that their part really helps anything, but that's not Google's fault.

So that makes one wonder what Google's real motives are.

Good PR. I'm as cynical as the next person, but PR is often the only motive for these things. If they had a sinister motive, they'd just offer to help the NSA some more.

Re:What is the point of this?

[Mitreya]

Turned out to be a false positive? I won't sleep much over it, unless someone genuinely innocent gets destroyed by this. But probabilistically, the chance of such occurrence is so low, not impossible, but so extremely low (truly innocent person in possession of child porn), I'm willing to live with the consequences.

You, sir, are a grade-A asshole

Are you considering the possibility that you might be the target of the false positive (however unlikely)? Because it is mighty kind of you to be willing to live with the consequences of someone else's life being ruined due to false positive.

All of this would be a less horrible idea if the law enforcement found a less damaging way to investigate (i.e. keep the accusation completely private until it is proven in court). Otherwise lives are utterly ruined well before the investigation is concluded.

I hope they really mean child

[Mal-2]

If they mean "all underage" and not just "blatantly children", good luck with that. There are no characteristics that will distinguish between 17 and 18, or even older. What is the software going to think of Kat Young, for example? What about models who are just small?

Also are they going to attempt to sort through drawings at all, considering they are legal in some jurisdictions and not others?

I sense false positives and angry models in Google's future.

Exactly - and how do you define underage?

[Viol8]

The age of consent in spain is 14, in the uk 16, in the USA 18 , so if there's a picture of a nude 15 or 17 year old in what country does it get to decided if its legal?

While this may be a laudable effort I have the sneaking feeling the USA once again will be pushing its legal system and morality onto the rest of the world.