Paedophile Snared As Google Scans Gmail For Images Of Child Abuse

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This should make you feel better about Google scanning your inbox. Creeps like this get taken off the street and put in prison where they belong.

Technology giant Google has developed state of the art software which proactively scours hundreds of millions of email accounts for images of child abuse. The breakthrough means paedophiles around the world will no longer be able to store and send vile images via email without the risk of their crimes becoming known to the authorities.
Click to expand...
 
Well what do you know, all the privacy invasions finally do something good (aside from boost someones bottom line)...
 
I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that anyone thought storing child porn in a free email that is known to be scanned was secure.
 
Google is a private company and their email service is voluntary and free ... as long as they remain in compliance with their Terms of Service I don't have any issues with this
 
No, it doesn't make me feel better at all. Take your pitchforks and torches elsewhere.
 
Why not? You're not forced to use anything Google, so if a sicko wants its kiddie porn stash that badly just keep it out of Google's all-seeing eyes.

That said, I hope all pervs keep their stash on gmail and get caught. All of them.
 
kbrickley said:
Google is a private company and their email service is voluntary and free ... as long as they remain in compliance with their Terms of Service I don't have any issues with this
Click to expand...

This.

/On the other hand, I'd rather pay for a service that allows me to retain my privacy.

It's a sad comment on the state of humanity when people en masse will give away their privacy in return for fleeting convenience and entertainment. Particularly when there are alternatives.
 
kbrickley said:
Google is a private company and their email service is voluntary and free ... as long as they remain in compliance with their Terms of Service I don't have any issues with this
Click to expand...

Its not voluntary if someone I deal with has gmail or forwards to someone with gmail.

And I'm going to block like 95% of email that has google-like policies? Basically my only option is to avoid e-mail, if you consider that makes it voluntary, that's your opinion.
 
I believe Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Yes I do think that every pedophile should burn in hell after lots of butt sechs in the federal pen, but I am allergic to your email not being private. Granted, it's a free email, and they aren't violating any of their terms (that they even upfront inform you of), but it still seems like 2 wrongs making a right.
 
Doesn't make me feel good at all actually. The pedo excuse is always the first justification for tech like this since no one would dare question it, but it always ends up far more than that. I can already see the Google pre-crime unit analyzing behavior patterns on google search/gmail/android usage/gps tracking/youtube/google+/etc and all the other data mining. They might even start enforcing the "cyber bully" laws that somehow made it on the books, since its technically illegal to tell someone on the internet to shove it up their ass (which should be a God given right IMO).

And saying you're not forced to use Google or Microsoft or Apple products is like saying, "you could always live in a cave somewhere and eat grass". ;)
 
Does end justify the mean? I don't think so. I've no problem with any free email service scanning my mail to generate custom ads. Anything beyond that is invasion of privacy.
 
I mentioned this in the other thread. The guy served 19 years in prison for a rape charge and recently got out. So I'm sure he's been clued out of the fact "Big Brother" on your email account is more real today than it was in 1995.
 
This does not make me feel better about anything. It just ensures I'll never use Google email. And if Google can do this, so can others, whether we are told about it or not.
 
The big problem here is this sets up a system of being totally guilty regardless of innocence.
Is having a picture of a naked child acceptable in any way?
We have pictures of my son running around the house buck naked when he was 2.
My parents have pictures of myself and sister running around the yard playing in the sprinkler buck naked when we were little. Pictures taken back in the 60s.
Suppose they scanned that picture and emailed it to a relative.
You get the picture. :(
 
Dr. Righteous said:
The big problem here is this sets up a system of being totally guilty regardless of innocence.
Is having a picture of a naked child acceptable in any way?
We have pictures of my son running around the house buck naked when he was 2.
My parents have pictures of myself and sister running around the yard playing in the sprinkler buck naked when we were little. Pictures taken back in the 60s.
Suppose they scanned that picture and emailed it to a relative.
You get the picture. :(
Click to expand...

The key is exploited or abused children.
 
Well supposedly the software looks at the image and compares it to a database of known child porn images, and only flags it if it matches. However, quite a few people have gotten in trouble for posting simply nude pictures of their children on Facebook or whatever, and one guy I remember was arrested on child porn charges for posting a nude image of HIMSELF as a child.
 
He should have kept his inbox clean, the idiot. Now that we know, for sure, Google is scanning the GMail system (with state-of-the-art software), users need to keep their mailbox clean and make sure there is no content that COULD BE construed as objectionable. What isn't illegal today could be tomorrow.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
The big problem here is this sets up a system of being totally guilty regardless of innocence.
Is having a picture of a naked child acceptable in any way?
We have pictures of my son running around the house buck naked when he was 2.
My parents have pictures of myself and sister running around the yard playing in the sprinkler buck naked when we were little. Pictures taken back in the 60s.
Suppose they scanned that picture and emailed it to a relative.
You get the picture. :(
Click to expand...

The article indicates they are looking for a specific list of files that are determined to be part of the exploitation network. They are not examining the exact content of the image itself.
 
God knows I'm not supporting pedophiles, but what's stopping people from sending 20 character encrypted .7zips with the file contents censored?
 
ShamisOMally said:
God knows I'm not supporting pedophiles, but what's stopping people from sending 20 character encrypted .7zips with the file contents censored?
Click to expand...

Well there isn't anything stopping it. But a lot of criminals are dumb and don't do stuff like this.
 
Does this mean if you want to send someone to jail all you need to do is spam them with bad images?
 
Cobra said:
Well supposedly the software looks at the image and compares it to a database of known child porn images
Click to expand...
I think this may just be an excuse for Google to collect CP. Time to have them investigated and see if they have any such files on any of their systems.
 
As much as I like the results, I don't like how it was done. You normally need a warrant to look at emails for a law enforcement agency, however if you have a private entity giving the information it's a "tip" something that you can't use as evidence in court (he said/she said), but the "tip" is enough to get a warrant which allows LEA to swoop in.

The worst part though, is that obviously they're going to keep doing this, but why in the bloody fuck did they feel it necessary to do a whole big ass news conference? Great you caught ONE damn pedophile, now all the other pedos out there will see this in the news and not use Google's emailing service. If you're going to be so bold as to scan all emails that get sent, at least be fucking quiet about it so you can get pedophiles off the street.
 
kbrickley said:
Google is a private company and their email service is voluntary and free ... as long as they remain in compliance with their Terms of Service I don't have any issues with this
Click to expand...

They are acting as an agent of the government and as such are subject to the same restrictions. What's next? DEA thugs showing up at your doorstep because you sent an e-mail to a Scroogle account talking about smoking a joint? The IRS scanning your e-mail for unpaid tribute?

This is why I refuse to use cloud services for anything important because they simply can't be trusted with your data. For important e-mail, I use an e-mail address on my own mail server that I run, control, and have physical access to. All mail on my server is encrypted with multiple layers of encryption, all mail on the client is encrypted, and all communications are encrypted. The only thing cloud e-mail is good for is spam and disposable crap (e.g. registering for websites).
 
Mixed feelings. I think all pedo's should die in a fire, but scanning EVERY email in the name of finding this shit isn't what America was founded for.
 
OEM said:
Mixed feelings. I think all pedo's should die in a fire, but scanning EVERY email in the name of finding this shit isn't what America was founded for.
Click to expand...

God fucking damnit with the no fucking edit button...Seriously Kyle, what the fuck?


EDIT: Then again it is a private service, so I guess if you agree to their terms not much you can say. As long as it isn't the government doing this.
 
damicatz said:
They are acting as an agent of the government and as such are subject to the same restrictions. What's next? DEA thugs showing up at your doorstep because you sent an e-mail to a Scroogle account talking about smoking a joint? The IRS scanning your e-mail for unpaid tribute?

This is why I refuse to use cloud services for anything important because they simply can't be trusted with your data. For important e-mail, I use an e-mail address on my own mail server that I run, control, and have physical access to. All mail on my server is encrypted with multiple layers of encryption, all mail on the client is encrypted, and all communications are encrypted. The only thing cloud e-mail is good for is spam and disposable crap (e.g. registering for websites).
Click to expand...

They are not an agency or agent of the government ... they are a private organization that has scanning features integrated into a service they provide users for free ... if they detect something anomalous then they can do whatever their TOS allows them to do ... including the equivalent of calling a crimebusters line to report a potential crime

The police still have to obtain a warrant to get the user information from Google, Google is simply reporting that the person has a potential flag that might entail further investigation ... the police can then determine if they have enough probable cause with that report to get a warrant and investigate further (just as they would with any citizen calling in a potential crime) ;)
 
kbrickley said:
They are not an agency or agent of the government ... they are a private organization that has scanning features integrated into a service they provide users for free ... if they detect something anomalous then they can do whatever their TOS allows them to do ... including the equivalent of calling a crimebusters line to report a potential crime

The police still have to obtain a warrant to get the user information from Google, Google is simply reporting that the person has a potential flag that might entail further investigation ... the police can then determine if they have enough probable cause with that report to get a warrant and investigate further (just as they would with any citizen calling in a potential crime) ;)
Click to expand...

No, Google is acting as an agent of law enforcement. The fact that they are private is irrelevant. There is no way they could have legally gotten a list of hashes of actual child porn images without their help because possession of child pornography (which is necessary to generate the hashes) is illegal.
 
chockomonkey said:
The key is exploited or abused children.
Click to expand...

Who is going to make that determination? The software? A person? And even then in what context will they know what these images are presented in like the poster mentioned? It's a problem that may have serious repercussions towards legitimately innocent people.
 
I believe Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Click to expand...
Sounds great. Very inspiring even. Except he lived in a different world. I just wonder if he would still think the same if he lived in today's world where people commit crimes that nobody could have thought of three hundred years ago.
 
Pantalaimon said:
Sounds great. Very inspiring even. Except he lived in a different world. I just wonder if he would still think the same if he lived in today's world where people commit crimes that nobody could have thought of three hundred years ago.
Click to expand...

The exploitation of children is an older crime than you might think. But then again, people had sex and got married extremely young then (girls basically as soon as they started menstruating, married to guys that were anywhere from their mid teens mid fourties), so maybe he would even be convicted as a pedophile nowadays. The world is always changing, not always for the better, but sometimes at least.
 
kbrickley said:
They are not an agency or agent of the government ...
Click to expand...
Neither is Halliburton, except when they are over in Iraq acting as an authorized agent of the US government on their behalf. I would say that Google acting as an arm of law enforcement is in effect acting as an agent of the US government, the same as say a private company that runs red-light cameras for the government.
 
damicatz said:
No, Google is acting as an agent of law enforcement. The fact that they are private is irrelevant. There is no way they could have legally gotten a list of hashes of actual child porn images without their help because possession of child pornography (which is necessary to generate the hashes) is illegal.
Click to expand...

They either have permission from law enforcement to own a server full of the stuff or they have a direct-access connection to the law enforcement server that has it. Either way implies a close working relationship.
 
Pantalaimon said:
Sounds great. Very inspiring even. Except he lived in a different world. I just wonder if he would still think the same if he lived in today's world where people commit crimes that nobody could have thought of three hundred years ago.
Click to expand...

I don't think sexual abuse towards children is a new concept.

Regardless, it's a service provided by a company. You opt in to these things by voluntarily using the service and reading the ToS.
 
Ducman69 said:
Neither is Halliburton, except when they are over in Iraq acting as an authorized agent of the US government on their behalf. I would say that Google acting as an arm of law enforcement is in effect acting as an agent of the US government, the same as say a private company that runs red-light cameras for the government.
Click to expand...

Except the article indicates they report the potential violation to the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (which is also not a government agency) ... it is the NCMEC that determines whether to involve law enforcement ... if they report the image to the police the police still have to issue a warrant to get anything from Google directly

Again, I stand by my assertion that Google is a private and free internet mail service ... they are very clear on what the "price" of that free service is ... if you use their service to do illegal things then I don't blame them or the government for hunting the person down, I blame the person who chose not to use the Dark Net for the their illegal activities like the smarter criminals would ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top