UK Pundit Chops at the Google Near Its Palatine Raphe

September 6, 2022

I read “Google’s Image-Scanning Illustrates How Tech Firms Can Penalise the Innocent.” The write up is an opinion piece, and I am not sure whether the ideas expressed in the essay are appropriate for my Harrod’s Creek ethos.

The write up states:

The background to this is that the tech platforms have, thankfully, become much more assiduous at scanning their servers for child abuse images. But because of the unimaginable numbers of images held on these platforms, scanning and detection has to be done by machine-learning systems, aided by other tools (such as the cryptographic labelling of illegal images, which makes them instantly detectable worldwide). All of which is great. The trouble with automated detection systems, though, is that they invariably throw up a proportion of “false positives” – images that flag a warning but are in fact innocuous and legal.

Yep, false positives from Google’s smart software.

Do these types of errors become part of the furniture of living? Does Google have a duty to deal with disagreements in a transparent manner? Does Google’s smart software care about problems caused by those who consume Google advertising?

It strikes me that the UK will be taking a closer look at the fascinating palatine raphe, probably in one of those nifty UK jurisprudence settings: Wigs, big words, and British disdain. Advertising, privacy, and false positives. I say, “The innocent!”

Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2022

Comments

Got something to say?





  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta