Wednesday, 11 January 2017

Microsoft Anti-Porn Workers Sue Over PTSD

quote [ Ex-employees of the company’s online safety team say they had to watch horrific online videos of child abuse, bestiality, and murders—and that Microsoft ignored their PTSD. ]
[SFW] [health] [+4 Sad]
[by XregnaR]
<-- Entry / Comment History

cb361 said @ 10:22am GMT on 12th January
Dunno. Perhaps there are lots of false-positives to trawl through. Perhaps they all have to be trawled through all the way, in case that cute couple with a taste of home-made porn decide to introduce their son in the last five minutes. Unlikely, but it could happen, and who would get into trouble if it was missed. And perhaps when there is a true-positive, they have to write up a detailed report or compliance or legal reasons ("1:34 - 1:50 man in military uniform gouges out second prisoner's right eyeball. 2:15 eats eyeball"). Perhaps when one dodgy file is found, they have write up all of their files, so there could be a lot of bad stuff in a row.

When I first read the article, I wondered why pictures/videos couldn't be pre-processed to make them blurry or altered in some other way to let the viewer quickly see what is going on, but perhaps protect them a little bit from the HD details. But I guess the company can't risk cutting off customers or expose them to legal action unless they have fully covered themselves first. That would be to expose themselves to legal action.

But, ... I dunno. We would need more information about procedures, to answer these questions.

I heard that the UK police have a server that they can upload seized pictures/videos, which automatically checks them against a massive store of known child pornography, and will tell them if there is a match. But which crucially doesn't allow the client direct to access the stored media.


cb361 said @ 1:00pm GMT on 12th January
Dunno. Perhaps there are lots of false-positives to trawl through. Perhaps they all have to be trawled through all the way, in case that cute couple with a taste for making home-made porn decide to introduce their young son in the last five minutes. Unlikely, but it could happen, and who would get into trouble if it was missed? And perhaps when there is a true-positive, they have to write up a detailed report or compliance or legal reasons ("1:34 - 1:50 man in military uniform gouges out second prisoner's right eyeball. 2:15 eats eyeball"). Perhaps when one dodgy file is found, they have write up all of their files, so there could be a lot of bad stuff in a row.

When I first read the article, I wondered why pictures/videos couldn't be pre-processed to make them blurry or altered in some other way to let the viewer quickly see what is going on, but perhaps protect them a little bit from the HD details. But I guess the company can't risk cutting off customers or expose them to legal action unless they have fully covered themselves first. That would be to expose themselves to legal action.

But, ... I dunno. We would need more information about procedures, to answer these questions.

I heard that the UK police have a server that they can upload seized pictures/videos, which automatically checks them against a massive store of known child pornography, and will tell them if there is a match. But which crucially doesn't allow the client direct to access the stored media.



<-- Entry / Current Comment
cb361 said @ 10:22am GMT on 12th January
Dunno. Perhaps there are lots of false-positives to trawl through. Perhaps they all have to be trawled through all the way, in case that cute couple with a taste for making home-made porn decide to introduce their young son in the last five minutes. Unlikely, but it could happen, and who would get into trouble if it was missed? And perhaps when there is a true-positive, they have to write up a detailed report or compliance or legal reasons ("1:34 - 1:50 man in military uniform gouges out second prisoner's right eyeball. 2:15 eats eyeball"). Perhaps when one dodgy file is found, they have write up all of their files, so there could be a lot of bad stuff in a row.

When I first read the article, I wondered why pictures/videos couldn't be pre-processed to make them blurry or altered in some other way to let the viewer quickly see what is going on, but perhaps protect them a little bit from the HD details. But I guess the company can't risk cutting off customers or expose them to legal action unless they have fully covered themselves first. That would be to expose themselves to legal action.

But, ... I dunno. We would need more information about procedures, to answer these questions.

I heard that the UK police have a server that they can upload seized pictures/videos, which automatically checks them against a massive store of known child pornography, and will tell them if there is a match. But which crucially doesn't allow the client direct to access the stored media.




Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
Paracetamol
lilmookieesquire
Ankylosaur