Google 'reveals user' over Gmail child abuse images

[wolf5370]

 

it should be noted that the guy, as far as I can tell, was arrested for having child porn, not raping kids. there is evidence that porn reduces rape. not suggesting he shouldnt have been arrested, just saying that there are much worse things he could have done.

 

People like him create the demand for child porn, so to my mind he's almost as guilty as the abusers filming and photographing it.

 

Not defending these people - but demand is only created if they pay for it. People sending via email are sharing for free - this reduces the demand surely.

[wolf5370]

 

"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about."

Said every fascist ever.

 

"we'd like to know a little bit about you for our files.."

 

From an interview with Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese:

 

U.S News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't people, who may be innocent, have such protection?

Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.

 

Scary!

[F430murci]

 
Yeah, but unlike North Koreans, I actually have internet access, electricity 24 hours a door, high quality food on my table, clean water, drive Italian sports cars and can say anything I want about Obama without fear of being arrested.

 

 
I fail to see what those amenities have to do with basic freedoms in a democracy. Unless you are argueing along the lines of "Life's good, shut up" or "I am happy, if you are not it's the wrong democracy for you", in which case the word democracy no longer applies.
 
I suppose for the time being you can say anything about Obama without being arrested, might just buy you a couple of hours of quality time with the border patrol whenever you enter the US, even as an US citizen. For the time being it only happens to US muslims and also to NSA-critical western authors wanting to attend an international conference.
 

 
News flash, its not the government scanning images in the emails. It is a private company, it is their email system, you probably consent to it by signing up and using their free system and if you don't like it, don't use gmail or better yet, don't send child porn in you gmail emails.
 

That's good. Private companies cannot hide so easily behind nondescript mantra-like terms like "national security" to avoid lawsuits.
 
At least for Germany I am 100% positive the practice of going through somebody's communication is illegal under both the telecommunication act and the constitution, no matter what you consented to, without a warrant in the first place. Might buy somebody at Google up to 5 years in prison as it contravenes our idea of freedom of speech, even if it uncovers illegal acts.
 
As this went through the news now I am also 100% certain Google will have to cut out those practices at least in continental Europe quite soon or be gone with it's mail and cloud services. I am expecting some lawsuit to be filed within the month.
 
"You probably consent to it by signing up..." - so you don't even now if you are swearing away your rights by signing up to some service, too much hassle going through 25+ pages of fine print full of legalese, the ramnifications of which you wouldn't comprehend even if you did? That's why terms of business are curtailed by laws.
 

 
Google's made no secret it scans Gmail users' accounts to provide targeted ads and even argued in court users should have no expectation of privacy. In response to a class action complaint against the company last year, Google's attorneys argued, "Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient's ECS provider in the course of delivery."

 
I suppose the sender of a letter would be quite surprised if said letter was ripped open by the mailman, that recipient's assistant could only get it's jand on it have processing by the communication provider. Will be an interesting lawsuit over in Germany with that statement out in the open. Or rather not.

I am a huge advocate of 4th Amendment, but unlike you actually understand the 4th Amendment. In the mid 90s, I composed 4th Amendment opinions for judges at both the intermediate appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

4th Amendament law addressing these issues is not new and was clarified or explained in Hester 1924 and in Katz 1967.

My law firm's emails reside on our servers inside our business and we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those email under Katz. Emails through gmail reside on servers outside your business or home and are not covered by Katz.

Google is not a governmental entity. If you do not like Google's policies, don't use their free email service and don't email kiddie porn to email accounts that are stored on their servers.

Gmail has a right to prohibit its users from using its services as a means of violating the law and here is why:

--------

Not every search and seizure that is scrutinized in state and federal court raises a Fourth Amendment issue. The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons or entities, private investigators, spouses, or neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment is inapplicable even against governmental action unless one establishes they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Katz explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection ... ". Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 [1967]

Individuals generally maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their bodies, clothing, and personal belongings. Homeowners possess a privacy interest that extends inside their homes and in the curtilage immediately surrounding the outside of their homes, but not in the "open fields" and "wooded areas" extending beyond the curtilage. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 [1924].

Iformation and photos on services like Gmail, Dropbox, Facebook and Twitter as their own, that information resides within easily accessible computers outside the user's home. If you do not like or disagree with email providr's policies chose a different email system or don't send anything incriminating over those services that violate their policies.

[wolf5370]

My company uses software that can spot T&A in emails. Pornography is strictly forbidden, but many people used to ignore it.

No-one wants to have to sit and snoop through peoples' mailboxes to look for it, so an automated process does it for them.

Microsoft have similar technology by the way.

As long as it's only a dumb program doing image analysis I don't really see a problem. As someone else said, it's in the terms and conditions and if you choose to use it, and then abuse it, you are the one that is to blame.

 

I have no problem using GMail, because I don't email kiddie porn, and I applaud them for using technology to nail these scum.

 

It's not as if the subhuman involved was denied due process.

 

Added: I'm pretty certain that Benjamin Franklin didn't know much about the Internet or child pornography for that matter.

 

 

 

Such software is very dumb actually - it works based on colour information (looking for skin tones) and some very basic pattern matching. They are very poor at doing it - and make many false positives (Google's own version pulls out flowers, ice creams, food images, balloons, cosmetic adverts and so on when searching for naked pictures). There is simply no way they could determine child porn from legal porn - or even from a glass of strawberry milkshake! Instead they build a list of possible hits and humans look at them. Fortunes have been spent on facial recognition programs and they are very easy to fool and not very good at matching either (regardless what TV shows suggest) - and faces have very easy patterns/shapes to them - bodies come in so many more shapes and sizes.

 

Guess Ben had little black slave kids if he felt so inclined.

Edited August 5, 2014 by wolf5370

[ggold]

The question I ask is, doesGoogle only conduct searches for child porn information on it's users ?

We all have loads personal information going through the GMail system daily...for me, it's information about my banking....info to my accountant...a whole range of stuff that I consider very personal.....I consider it much more than a case of "if I don't like it, don't use it".

 

The US now openly has data collection..same as Australia is about to embark on....

Can we actually communicate in private an longer, when encrypting is able to be decrypted by these bodies?

Scary stuff nowadays and likely to become worse

 

Time to dust of the type writer and send mail by postal services. 

[Chicog]

 

 

it should be noted that the guy, as far as I can tell, was arrested for having child porn, not raping kids. there is evidence that porn reduces rape. not suggesting he shouldnt have been arrested, just saying that there are much worse things he could have done.

 

People like him create the demand for child porn, so to my mind he's almost as guilty as the abusers filming and photographing it.

 

Not defending these people - but demand is only created if they pay for it. People sending via email are sharing for free - this reduces the demand surely.

 

 

If someone is taking pictures of themselves or others abusing children to send to others, it doesn't really matter if they are charging or not, no?

 

If they had no-one to send them to, there wouldn't be a demand.

 

So I disagree I'm afraid.

 

 

[F430murci]

 

"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about."

Said every fascist ever.

 
"we'd like to know a little bit about you for our files.."
 
From an interview with Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese:
 
U.S News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't people, who may be innocent, have such protection?
Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
 

Scary!

No. That is some ridiculous statement made in a political context and not by our judiciary or someone who actually dictates or controls the development of law.

There are many aspects of 4th Amendment erosion that are scary. Google email is not one of them. Too many idiots think the Net is theirs and they are free to use it to commit crimes or use it in any manner they want to disseminate private, personal information.

Facebook sux. Why would anyone be comfy with a platform that can trace your every move and location through your phone? Why are people so pathetic they have to have that and have to publicize where they are at and what they are doing at all times of the day to garner public approval. Then these same people want to whine about want or complain about reasonable expectations of privacy for activities on the Internet??? Really??? Amazing!

From a privacy stand point, the Net sux! There is NO privacy on the Net. Even this forum is using an ad service and that tracks your searches, preferences and habits so they can post ads that may appeal to you on here.

This is just the way it is and we chose to put out personal information, personal preferences, beliefs, likes, dislikes and other personal information out in the public domain by our preferred activities so who is really to blame? We allow it to happen and continue to use Gmail, forums and sites using Google ads to generate income so some are creating the very problem about that which they complain. Edited August 5, 2014 by F430murci

[Chicog]

 

My company uses software that can spot T&A in emails. Pornography is strictly forbidden, but many people used to ignore it.

No-one wants to have to sit and snoop through peoples' mailboxes to look for it, so an automated process does it for them.

Microsoft have similar technology by the way.

As long as it's only a dumb program doing image analysis I don't really see a problem. As someone else said, it's in the terms and conditions and if you choose to use it, and then abuse it, you are the one that is to blame.

 

I have no problem using GMail, because I don't email kiddie porn, and I applaud them for using technology to nail these scum.

 

It's not as if the subhuman involved was denied due process.

 

Added: I'm pretty certain that Benjamin Franklin didn't know much about the Internet or child pornography for that matter.

 

 

 

Such software is very dumb actually - it works based on colour information (looking for skin tones) and some very basic pattern matching. They are very poor at doing it - and make many false positives (Google's own version pulls out flowers, ice creams, food images, balloons, cosmetic adverts and so on when searching for naked pictures). There is simply no way they could determine child porn from legal porn - or even from a glass of strawberry milkshake! Instead they build a list of possible hits and humans look at them. Fortunes have been spent on facial recognition programs and they are very easy to fool and not very good at matching either (regardless what TV shows suggest) - and faces have very easy patterns/shapes to them - bodies come in so many more shapes and sizes.

 

Guess Ben had little black slave kids if he felt so inclined.

 

 

The software is fine for spotting porn and there are very few false positives so it does its job very well. But no, it cannot distinguish between child and adult nudity.

 

However, in the case of Google, after a bit of reading they do not use this type of software; they work with the FBI and other law enforcement to build up a database of known images and create a hash for each one, then simply scan for attachments that match those hashes.

So they know when one is flagged that it's child pornography.

 

I don't consider this an invasion of privacy and it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Chicog

[Chicog]

Why are people so pathetic they have to have that and have to publicize where they are at and what they are doing at all times if the day to garner public approval.

 

Someone else who doesn't really understand facebook....

[wolf5370]

 

 

 

it should be noted that the guy, as far as I can tell, was arrested for having child porn, not raping kids. there is evidence that porn reduces rape. not suggesting he shouldnt have been arrested, just saying that there are much worse things he could have done.

 

People like him create the demand for child porn, so to my mind he's almost as guilty as the abusers filming and photographing it.

 

Not defending these people - but demand is only created if they pay for it. People sending via email are sharing for free - this reduces the demand surely.

 

 

If someone is taking pictures of themselves or others abusing children to send to others, it doesn't really matter if they are charging or not, no?

 

If they had no-one to send them to, there wouldn't be a demand.

 

So I disagree I'm afraid.

 

 

 

 

That depends whether the photographer took the photos for his own "use" and also decided to share them - or he took them for the intent of disseminating them. The latter relies on demand, the former does not. If we look at a non-emotive analogy (perhaps) then does someone make cake recipes for their own use, and also share/swap amongst likeminded people, or do they make the recipes because there is a demand for them? I would suggest the former in most cases - other than those going to be sold for profit (articles and recipe books).

 

Again, I am certainly not defending these animals, but I just think these perverts do not take such images due to demand (unless they are making a profit by selling them on) but because they are perverts! They would do it if there was a forum for sharing or not. Also, a lot of these images and videos now come from sites like Omegle and Stickman where young teens and even pre-teens are displaying themselves (and even performing sex acts and masturbation) live on webcam with no adult collusion (they do it to each other) - there are whole darknet sites dedicated to such (where they have been recorded and uploaded) - this makes it muddier, the "victim" is really only a victim of possible privacy breaches due to the sharing of the "private" video which was aired live to a public system under the "victims" own volition.

 

Sure, this does not take away the despicable nature of forwarding on such, and being "entertained" by such, but there is even less demand-lead-drive when there was no impetus other than the teen/child wanted to publish it and had the skills to do so.

[wolf5370]

 

 

My company uses software that can spot T&A in emails. Pornography is strictly forbidden, but many people used to ignore it.

No-one wants to have to sit and snoop through peoples' mailboxes to look for it, so an automated process does it for them.

Microsoft have similar technology by the way.

As long as it's only a dumb program doing image analysis I don't really see a problem. As someone else said, it's in the terms and conditions and if you choose to use it, and then abuse it, you are the one that is to blame.

 

I have no problem using GMail, because I don't email kiddie porn, and I applaud them for using technology to nail these scum.

 

It's not as if the subhuman involved was denied due process.

 

Added: I'm pretty certain that Benjamin Franklin didn't know much about the Internet or child pornography for that matter.

 

 

 

Such software is very dumb actually - it works based on colour information (looking for skin tones) and some very basic pattern matching. They are very poor at doing it - and make many false positives (Google's own version pulls out flowers, ice creams, food images, balloons, cosmetic adverts and so on when searching for naked pictures). There is simply no way they could determine child porn from legal porn - or even from a glass of strawberry milkshake! Instead they build a list of possible hits and humans look at them. Fortunes have been spent on facial recognition programs and they are very easy to fool and not very good at matching either (regardless what TV shows suggest) - and faces have very easy patterns/shapes to them - bodies come in so many more shapes and sizes.

 

Guess Ben had little black slave kids if he felt so inclined.

 

 

The software is fine for spotting porn and there are very few false positives so it does its job very well. But no, it cannot distinguish between child and adult nudity.

 

However, in the case of Google, after a bit of reading they do not use this type of software; they work with the FBI and other law enforcement to build up a database of known images and create a hash for each one, then simply scan for attachments that match those hashes.

So they know when one is flagged that it's child pornography.

 

I don't consider this an invasion of privacy and it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

Yes, this seems like a very good way of doing it - I agree, a lot less invasive.

[F430murci]

Why are people so pathetic they have to have that and have to publicize where they are at and what they are doing at all times if the day to garner public approval.

 
Someone else who doesn't really understand facebook....

No, I totally get it and use it to share photos and info with family members spread out all over the US, in Europe and in Russia.

While I did not enable certain features on Facebook like GPS tracking, I have relatives and friends that cannot go for a jog, to a restaurant or to the bathroom without posting update and telling the world.

Then everyone's fish lipped selfies . . . I even have a close friend that I adore and who is a very good person who changes her profile pictures daily showing her in her 500 square foot shoe closet or depicting her with one of her 3 Bentleys, Lambo, Ferrari or Aston Martin. Really!!!

Haha, perhaps you don't understand Facebook. Facebook is great for the insecure egomaniac suffering from an inferiority complex and needing constant public approval or everyone telling them how pretty and cool they are.

[Cthulhu]

My company uses software that can spot T&A in emails. Pornography is strictly forbidden, but many people used to ignore it.

No-one wants to have to sit and snoop through peoples' mailboxes to look for it, so an automated process does it for them.

Microsoft have similar technology by the way.

As long as it's only a dumb program doing image analysis I don't really see a problem. As someone else said, it's in the terms and conditions and if you choose to use it, and then abuse it, you are the one that is to blame.

 

I have no problem using GMail, because I don't email kiddie porn, and I applaud them for using technology to nail these scum.

 

It's not as if the subhuman involved was denied due process.

 

Added: I'm pretty certain that Benjamin Franklin didn't know much about the Internet or child pornography for that matter.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by T&A but making, a guess, fair enough; email is not the place for porn. But what baffles me is why anyone would use email for kiddy porn.

And Gmail???

 

I don't disagree with your comments about the person concerned but you could also add "brainless stupidity" to your observations.

 

 

 

[Chicog]

There is nothing illegal about email porn pictures to your mates in a country where it is illegal.

However it is considered haram in the Middle East and therefore highly illegal, and the edict came down on high that we were to take steps to knock it on the head.

Having a system in place and telling users they'd get caught has had the desired effect, without us having to go snooping through emails.

 

 

[arjunadawn]

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.

 

Them sick *ucks deserve all they get, good on google for once.

 

I regret to say this but this is actually irresponsible. The notion that someone who does not want their private information perused is suspect. Why do I connect that statement with yours? Because I have frequently heard those who are advocates for such snooping using the refrain you quoted, and then disingenuously suggesting "What do you have to hide." It has nothing to do with hiding. Indeed, its unlikely those that have something to hide would be bitching about it.

 

A few years ago I emailed a US Government Security Clearance document SF88, I think, to a State Department rep. I received a response informing me they received it. On top of the email was a window with advertisements in it for Lawyers in Washington DC who specialize in Secret Top Secret Security Clearances. I was shocked and looked into how this happened by searching online. Indeed, I learned, Google scans the emails and targets ads. But a document of this type was read, either by human or machine. The data contained in my forms now exist somewhere else other than the intended recipient. This example only suggests the ill that can result from a security lapse of such information. It is inherently wrong to be spying on people's personal effects. With direct communication that is a reasonable expectation of privacy, especially when the recipient is a .gov address. Yes, any email carrier is acceptable to mail that document in. Perhaps not any longer.

 

Approximately a year or two ago gmail went forward with a policy that effectively published this behavior they were doing, double downed on it, and enshrined it in a new agreement that everyone had to acknowledge. I did not and deleted my account. The degree of tyranny that is perpetrated in the west within the stalking horse called "for the children" is just appalling. American, in particular, has proven to the world that the Land of The Free will eat a S__t Sandwich if fed one bite at a time. America, for one, has become an Orwellian nightmare and those who flippantly suggest "I have nothing to hide" surrender both their faculty and their freedoms.(PS- Please don't rebut this with the innuendo that I endorse child molestation. This issue is only partially related to that horrible abuse. At least afford that I am not suggesting that).

[Saradoc1972]

 

I am a huge advocate of 4th Amendment, but unlike you actually understand the 4th Amendment. In the mid 90s, I composed 4th Amendment opinions for judges at both the intermediate appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

4th Amendament law addressing these issues is not new and was clarified or explained in Hester 1924 and in Katz 1967.

My law firm's emails reside on our servers inside our business and we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those email under Katz. Emails through gmail reside on servers outside your business or home and are not covered by Katz.

Google is not a governmental entity. If you do not like Google's policies, don't use their free email service and don't email kiddie porn to email accounts that are stored on their servers.

Gmail has a right to prohibit its users from using its services as a means of violating the law and here is why:

--------

Not every search and seizure that is scrutinized in state and federal court raises a Fourth Amendment issue. The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons or entities, private investigators, spouses, or neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment is inapplicable even against governmental action unless one establishes they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Katz explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection ... ". Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 [1967]

Individuals generally maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their bodies, clothing, and personal belongings. Homeowners possess a privacy interest that extends inside their homes and in the curtilage immediately surrounding the outside of their homes, but not in the "open fields" and "wooded areas" extending beyond the curtilage. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 [1924].

Iformation and photos on services like Gmail, Dropbox, Facebook and Twitter as their own, that information resides within easily accessible computers outside the user's home. If you do not like or disagree with email providr's policies chose a different email system or don't send anything incriminating over those services that violate their policies.

 

 

I am afraid you are barking up the wrong tree here, but I appreciate your pointed reply and the effort you put into this. I might even try to locate the cases you are qouting as I am finding it quite educative to take a closer look at the US legal system instead of just going along with the common European opinion along the lines of "they've all gone bonkers over there" or something.

 

I readily concede I don't know squat about the 4th Amendment which is why I never used that legal term and did not capitalize the word constitution. I am talking about the German legal system and constitution, the German (and general European) take on freedom of speech, and the impact these press revelations will probably have on Google's business in Germany and Europe (I wrote "over there" because I am presently residing in Thailand). I have professional expertise opining on that and I find it worthwhile discussing those things with a view to other legal systems as the American Constitution might not be the be-all and end-all of things with a view to an open democratic society, especially after Snowden and the NSA saga.

 

That Google case is already a big issue in German language news and I have failed digging up a single German, Austrian, or Swiss news report with a positive connotation as to Google's practices so far, apart from quotations of the British Prime Minister, which is why I wrote "continental Europe". The British government has a view of it's own as to what the European Court of Human Rights holds and has a history of disregarding some of it's verdicts on grounds of "national security" (our dear Mr Camron is apparently thinking of opting out of the ECHR system because of some mistaken views as to restrictions that is imposing on the UK's ability to extradite some unwanted foreign citizens, but won't be able to do so while in a coalition with the British Liberal Democrats).

 

That was probably easy enough to miss as -so far- we are talking about an American case here.

 

The German version of "Meinungsfreiheit" (freedom of speech, when I am discussing legal terms on this forum I always give the original term with an ad hoc translation as this is technical language and just giving the English term is precarious at best) encompasses the right to communicate without surveillance by either government or private entities (unless there is a warrant signed by a judge, and don't get me started on how useless that judicial system is in practice unless occasionally brought before the constitutional court), because if citizens are aware of their private communcation being customarily intercepted and possibly being used against them, that might lead to self-censorship and hence render that basic freedom meaningless to the detriment of democracy as such.

 

To the general audience: I refuse talking about child porn and other illegal content here, I am talking about basic democratic freedoms, their legal protection, and their value as such.

 

The freedom from surveillance is enshrined both in in Art. 5 and Art. 10 Grundgesetz (Basic Law or Constitution of Germany) as "Meinungsfreiheit" and "Brief, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis"  (Letter, Post, and Communication Secret). While communication providers of phone, email, or other communication services *are* entitled to forbid using their services for illegal purposes, they are definitely not allowed screening the use of their services for that. If they are served a warrant (or are otherwise notified by a third party) they might terminate their contract with that customer and usually reserve that right in their terms of business.

 

This goes not for openly accessible webpages, it *might* not be applicable for file-hosting or cloud-services, as that is not or might not be private communication. But ISPs in most European countries (the UK, France and Sweden have so far imposed a set of rules with blocking file-sharing with varying degrees of success) are not required to check on those UNTIL their are notified (i.e. not finding out by themselves) there is illegal content there, and are granted total legal immunity until then because of that take on freedom of speech.

 

Emails, whether on a private server or an ISP's server, are considered private communication in Germany (as is what webpages you are accessing over the internet) and are absolutely sacrosanct for service providers unless there is warrant, in which case they have to hand them over to authorities and still cannot screen or read them themselves.

 

When I had my little law firm in Germany I used a German email provider with a reasonable expection of those emails being safe on their server, while sending clients are warning in my terms of business that email correspondence was not generally safe unless encrypted and provided a public key for that.

 

IF any authority had ever seized my emails because some client had been indicted for something I'd have placed a court order for those to be sealed for the scrutiny of a judge only, certainly not the police or some state attorney. Not that I would have expected anyone to even try that.

 

The problem I see for Google's practices in Germany is that we don't have a "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, so any notifications by Google and the following seizures will probably admissible in court. As long as Google is allowed to do that sort of thing. And I don't see how screening emails for child porn (as opposed to other criminal acts) is having to do with their customized advertisement-based business-model.

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

The question I ask is, doesGoogle only conduct searches for child porn information on it's users ?

We all have loads personal information going through the GMail system daily...for me, it's information about my banking....info to my accountant...a whole range of stuff that I consider very personal.....I consider it much more than a case of "if I don't like it, don't use it".

 

The US now openly has data collection..same as Australia is about to embark on....

Can we actually communicate in private an longer, when encrypting is able to be decrypted by these bodies?

Scary stuff nowadays and likely to become worse

 

There is lots of info about Google out there on the net and what they get up to. They are building many data storage facilities - the size of aircraft hangars and bigger, just to store ALL the data from their system. They scan and store every single mail you write, even when you think it is deleted, everything is stored about you. If they need to go back and do searches on you for a specific reason your whole life is on their servers if you use Gmail, Google, FB etc. 

[Chicog]

Approximately a year or two ago gmail went forward with a policy that effectively published this behavior they were doing, double downed on it, and enshrined it in a new agreement that everyone had to acknowledge. I did not and deleted my account. The degree of tyranny that is perpetrated in the west within the stalking horse called "for the children" is just appalling. American, in particular, has proven to the world that the Land of The Free will eat a S__t Sandwich if fed one bite at a time. America, for one, has become an Orwellian nightmare and those who flippantly suggest "I have nothing to hide" surrender both their faculty and their freedoms.(PS- Please don't rebut this with the innuendo that I endorse child molestation. This issue is only partially related to that horrible abuse. At least afford that I am not suggesting that).

 

 

Google always made it clear that their computers scanned emails for keywords and generated the adverts based on that. It's never been a big secret and, while they may have tweaked it, it's not something new in the User agreement either.

 

So Google can see me email a hotel booking or a party invite.

Well so can a fourteen year old script kiddie with the right tools.

If you want privacy, use something encrypted, it's very simple.

 

No-one forces you to use free web-based email, and until SMTP is replaced by something inherently secure from start to finish, any expectation of privacy using standard email is a complete fantasy.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Chicog

[arjunadawn]

 

Approximately a year or two ago gmail went forward with a policy that effectively published this behavior they were doing, double downed on it, and enshrined it in a new agreement that everyone had to acknowledge. I did not and deleted my account. The degree of tyranny that is perpetrated in the west within the stalking horse called "for the children" is just appalling. American, in particular, has proven to the world that the Land of The Free will eat a S__t Sandwich if fed one bite at a time. America, for one, has become an Orwellian nightmare and those who flippantly suggest "I have nothing to hide" surrender both their faculty and their freedoms.(PS- Please don't rebut this with the innuendo that I endorse child molestation. This issue is only partially related to that horrible abuse. At least afford that I am not suggesting that).

 

 

Google always made it clear that their computers scanned emails for keywords and generated the adverts based on that. It's never been a big secret and, while they may have tweaked it, it's not something new in the User agreement either.

 

So Google can see me email a hotel booking or a party invite.

Well so can a fourteen year old script kiddie with the right tools.

If you want privacy, use something encrypted, it's very simple.

 

No-one forces you to use free web-based email, and until SMTP is replaced by something inherently secure from start to finish, any expectation of privacy using standard email is a complete fantasy.

 

 

I began to add an edit to my post, but did not, stating that in the end it is personal choice. People can go elsewhere, as long as other options remain. I agree. In my case, prior to roughly one or two years ago, I was unaware that google scanned. Indeed, there were some sensational stories at the time so many more than just me were surprised that this was always there, as you have suggested. That is why google then went officially public requiring people to re confirm their gmail. Whether it was "a big secret" or not, in my case, I was unaware.

 

[F430murci]

Forget Google, we should be more concerned about hackers from Russia that steal credit card numbers without any repercussions (ala Target and Neiman Marcus) and now just got perhaps a billion login and password from several hundred thousand Internet sites and businesses. Unlike Google, they use the information to steal from us and the Russian government/authorities does nothing to stop it or prosecute it.

---------

A Russian group has hacked 1.2 billion usernames and passwords belonging to more than 500 million email addresses, according to Hold Security - a US firm specialising in discovering breaches.

Hold Security described the hack as the "largest data breach known to date".

It claimed the stolen information came from more than 420,000 websites, including "many leaders in virtually all industries across the world".

Hold Security did not give details of the companies affected by the hack.

"They didn't just target large companies; instead, they targeted every site that their victims visited," Hold Security said in its report.

http://m.bbc.com/news/technology-28654613 Edited August 6, 2014 by F430murci

[tubby johnson]

Each time a child abuser gets busted, the usual TV suspects crawl out of the woodwork to jump to his defence and declare his innocence.

Google broke its privacy policy, but in this case common sense and our hearts tell us sane people that the rights of the child victims exceed the rights of the child rapist. Rape = torture. Rot in prison; a warm welcome from the bikers, gangsters and thugs awaits you.

[F430murci]

Each time a child abuser gets busted, the usual TV suspects crawl out of the woodwork to jump to his defence and declare his innocence.

Google broke its privacy policy, but in this case common sense and our hearts tell us sane people that the rights of the child victims exceed the rights of the child rapist. Rape = torture. Rot in prison; a warm welcome from the bikers, gangsters and thugs awaits you.

In addition, if the collection of information violated his 4th Amendment rights, the evidence cannot and will not be used in his criminal prosecution. You can bet perverts lawyer will challenge the evidence if there is a challenge to be made.

[Chicog]

Oh no doubt there will be an ambulance chaser claiming that all the evidence they found at his house is the fruit of some poison tree.

[F430murci]

Oh no doubt there will be an ambulance chaser claiming that all the evidence they found at his house is the fruit of some poison tree.

Ambulance chaser don't make 4th Amendment fruit if poisonous tree arguments. Criminal defense lawyers do. I, however, doubt very seriously any civil ambulance chasing type lawyer will touch anything having to do with this pervert or his case.

[F430murci]

Interesting how the two largest stories in US, however, are not being picked up here.

The latest Russian data breach is crazy and probably includes this site and everyone on this site. Hope no one on here uses the same login and password here as they do for banking or bill paying.

The other story about the undercover Afghan open firing at UN base killing a 2 star general and killing/wounding 15 others at the base.

[Bernard Flint]

Interesting how the two largest stories in US, however, are not being picked up here.

The latest Russian data breach is crazy and probably includes this site and everyone on this site. Hope no one on here uses the same login and password here as they do for banking or bill paying.

The other story about the undercover Afghan open firing at UN base killing a 2 star general and killing/wounding 15 others at the base.

 

 

Very interesting Sir

 

maybe, just maybe, because the thread isnt about those 2 stories. Does that sound logical and gives an answer????

[F430murci]

Interesting how the two largest stories in US, however, are not being picked up here.

The latest Russian data breach is crazy and probably includes this site and everyone on this site. Hope no one on here uses the same login and password here as they do for banking or bill paying.

The other story about the undercover Afghan open firing at UN base killing a 2 star general and killing/wounding 15 others at the base.

 
 
Very interesting Sir
 
maybe, just maybe, because the thread isnt about those 2 stories. Does that sound logical and gives an answer????

Picked up here as here in forum . . . , but thanks for pointing that out though.

[F430murci]

What the heck, hopefully gmail scan for kiddie porn does not impact many here. This, however, impacts all here.

-------

It's time to change your passwords again. All of them.

A Russian crime ring has stolen a staggering amount of confidential information: 1.2 billion username and password combos and more than 500 million email addresses from some 420,000 websites, according to a report in The New York Times. Hold Security in Milwaukee first discovered the breach, warning site visitors in a post Tuesday titled, "You have been hacked!"

"The magnitude of this is almost unimaginable," said Adam Levin, chief executive of Identity Theft 911. Given a global population of a little more than 7 billion, he said, "you've got a pretty good shot that you're on the list."

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/billion-passwords-stolen-change-all-yours-now-n174321

[Saradoc1972]

Short update:

 

German Telco's including freemail-providers have been quick to declare not to be using any scanning technologies whatsoever as there are no legal provisions to do so.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/kinderpornografie-deutsche-e-mail-dienste-suchen-nicht-im-postfach-a-985046.html

 

They can only use spam-filters and anti-virus software on specific request by the user.

 

None of this is having to do with a service being provided for free.

 

The problem with Germany (and most non-Anglosaxon countries) is, again, that there is no preclusion of evidence apart from somewhat outstanding cases where that evidence was gathered by government entities illegally on purpose. Evidence obtained indirectly -like from a search warrant based on some notification by Google or some foreign authority acting upon that- could be used in court.

[Jiu-Jitsu]

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.
 
Them sick *ucks deserve all they get, good on google for once.

 

That's what they say in North Korea too.

Yeah, but unlike North Koreans, I actually have internet access, electricity 24 hours a door, high quality food on my table, clean water, drive Italian sports cars and can say anything I want about Obama without fear of being arrested.

News flash, its not the government scanning images in the emails. It is a private company, it is their email system, you probably consent to it by signing up and using their free system and if you don't like it, don't use gmail or better yet, don't send child porn in you gmail emails.

--------

DETECTIVE DAVID NETTLES, HOUSTON METRO INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASKFORCE: "He was trying to get around getting caught by just keeping it inside of his email. I would never be able to find that. ... I don't really know how they do their job, but I'm just glad they do it."​

Google's made no secret it scans Gmail users' accounts to provide targeted ads and even argued in court users should have no expectation of privacy. In response to a class action complaint against the company last year, Google's attorneys argued, "Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient's ECS provider in the course of delivery."

The company also partly funds the Internet Watch Foundation, which identifies child abuse images on the Web.

http://m.wpxi.com/news/news/national/googles-gmail-tip-leads-child-porn-arrest-near-hou/ngtdD/

 
Well, you also have a Patriot Act, Guantanamo, whistle blowers in jail or exile, PRISM, extraordinary rendition and 1 adult out of 1000 in jail.
 
This "if you don't have anything to hide..." phrase is just a poor slogan to promote securitarian and surveillance policies, it supposes that society and authorities are entitled to know everything about individuals, that it is necessarily wrong to hide something, and moreover, that State is fundamentaly and permanently benevolent, which of course isn't true.

You'll probably find that is 1 adult out of 150. 
 
See here

The USA is a sick country.