Google 'reveals user' over Gmail child abuse images

[Teh One Who Knocks]

BBC News


http://i.imgur.com/uzPRkI6.jpg

Google has revealed the identity of a user after discovering child abuse imagery in the man's Gmail account in Houston, Texas, according to a local news report.

It alerted a child protection agency, which notified the police and the man was arrested, KHOU 11 News reported.

Google told the BBC it would not comment on individual accounts.

The arrest raises questions over the privacy of personal email and Google's role in policing the web.

Police in Houston told the local news station that Google detected explicit images of a young girl in an email being sent by John Henry Skillern. After the existence of the email was referred to them by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the police obtained a search warrant and arrested the man.

The 41-year-old is a convicted sex offender. He has been charged with possessing child pornography, it was reported.

"I can't see that information, I can't see that photo, but Google can," Detective David Nettles said.

Google also refused to say whether it searched its users' Gmail content for other illegal activity, such as pirated content or hate speech.

'Proactively identifying'

David Drummond, the chief legal officer for Google, has previously said that Google helps fund the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), which is tasked with "proactively identifying child abuse images that Google can then remove from our search engine".

Google works with the IWF and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children extensively, he said, adding: "We have built technology that trawls other platforms for known images of child sex abuse. We can then quickly remove them and report their existence to the authorities."

Google automatically scans email accounts to provide ads within Gmail, which has more than 400 million users worldwide.

In April, Google updated its terms and conditions to say: "Our automated systems analyse your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customised search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored."

This occurred after a class-action lawsuit against the company over email scanning was dismissed earlier this year. At the time, Google said that "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties".

In April Google also stopped scanning more than 30 million Gmail accounts linked to an educational scheme following reports that the scans might have breached a US privacy law.

Facebook has also faced a similar class-action lawsuit over message scanning.

[Goofy]

Good.

[RBP]

:meh:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Fuck this guy, but also fuck this practice

[RBP]

Fuck this guy, but also fuck this practice
I agree, but you can't have it both ways.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

True

[Muddy]

Big brother.

[Hal-9000]

an example where Big Brother is a benefit :thumbsup:



*deletes all pics of midget nuns and donkey-love* 8-[

[RBP]

an example where Big Brother is a benefit :thumbsup:

*deletes all pics of midget nuns and donkey-love* 8-[

Is it though? Maybe Canada is different, but I question the right of a private business to determine what constitutes legal search and seizure for criminal prosecution.

If I click an agree to something no one reads, does that give the police state the same rights to access as the corporation?

We are outraged that the government through NSA would dare monitor citizens... but we're fine with corporations doing their bidding? wtf is the difference?

I know it's murky. A Wal*Mart photo developer has an obligation to report child porn. Man, I don't know. Voluntarily providing evidence just feels different than monitoring private communications.

Go further than 1984. Joe McCarthy would have loved this opportunity.

[Hal-9000]

Is it though? Maybe Canada is different, but I question the right of a private business to determine what constitutes legal search and seizure for criminal prosecution.

If I click an agree to something no one reads, does that give the police state the same rights to access as the corporation?

We are outraged that the government through NSA would dare monitor citizens... but we're fine with corporations doing their bidding? wtf is the difference?

I know it's murky. A Wal*Mart photo developer has an obligation to report child porn. Man, I don't know. Voluntarily providing evidence just feels different than monitoring private communications.

Go further than 1984. Joe McCarthy would have loved this opportunity.


It becomes a who can tell scenario then....yes we all have the right to privacy but since the internet in general doesn't bode well with self policing and practices, I only have this to add...

If you aren't doing anything against the law, you should never have to worry about this sort of thing happening.


I applaud Google for this. If the same technology finds something illegal on my PC...for example snuff vids or pics, who is really to blame for that?

[Hal-9000]

Do I like the fact that Google may be rifling through the ultra-personal pictures and vids my g/f sends me? No I don't.

But if the tech catches kiddie porn purveyors or terrorists, I can live with it.

[Hal-9000]

I have a question for those that feel this is a violation.

At least 5 years ago I watched a news piece on TV. Bill Gates had assigned a team of techs to come up with an algorithm to scan chat room communications for kiddie fiddlers. He worked with the police departments of 3 states. The software was implemented and the story showed Bill shaking hands with a police commissioner. Sorry I don't have a link but it did happen and at the time, they had caught and charged 4 child molesters. Gates did the development and implementation on his dime.

I know this runs into the territory of RBP's 'intent' and discussion can get muddy in that respect. But look at what happened...once they honed in on a suspected molester, they tagged his IP and gathered evidence. Then with the 4 I mentioned above, all of the suspects were arrested not just on intent, but based on physical evidence on their pc's and at their residences.

If this tech stops even one child from going down to McDonalds and ending up in the back of a van, isn't it worth it?

[Pony]

I agree, but you can't have it both ways.

If the tech is good enough you can. The computer could auto scan for the "fingerprint" of known images and if one is found it's turned over to the authorities who have grounds to get a warrant to search.
Basically no more privacy breach than a virus scan.

[RBP]

I have a question for those that feel this is a violation.

If this tech stops even one child from going down to McDonalds and ending up in the back of a van, isn't it worth it?

I don't think so, no. The end cannot justify the means.


If the tech is good enough you can. The computer could auto scan for the "fingerprint" of known images and if one is found it's turned over to the authorities who have grounds to get a warrant to search.
Basically no more privacy breach than a virus scan.

So why has the practice of police using heat scanning of homes to find pot growers consistently been deemed unconstitutional? Is that not a fingerprint of illegal activity?

And how does google know what's legal and illegal anyway? Can mom have naked pictures of her kids in her email? What's normal and what's porn? Google now decides what images are legal or illegal? Really?

I get it. I do. And it's easy to say "heck yeah" when it's child perverts. But we still have rules of evidence, privacy rights, and protection for illegal search and seizure.

Wait until they start scanning for personal pictures of high capacity magazines; people will be bleeding from their ears from the deafening screams. :popcorn:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

If this tech stops even one child from going down to McDonalds and ending up in the back of a van, isn't it worth it?

No, because now you have crossed a line that you can use fear (possible child molestation) for infringing on all other privacy issues.

[Hal-9000]

I understand your feelings on the issue as a whole...but without sounding too FBD-ish, ya don't think they're doing that and will be doing that in the future without your consent/knowledge anyway?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Yes, and I still think its bullshit and illegal

[Hal-9000]

so why not cast the net to capture the larger fish....since they're already going through my search history of midgets that fuck regular size donkeys :lol:

[RBP]

so why not cast the net to capture the larger fish....since they're already going through my search history of midgets that fuck regular size donkeys :lol:

Oh I don't know... maybe because this is a free nation with laws and civil protections?

[Hal-9000]

I guess I'm using a response that I often hear when we discuss guns. 'But hal we can't, all of the bad guys already have guns so we need protection' . Meaning that Pandora's Box has already been opened, now we have to live the world that we created.

similar sentiment...if we know or suspect that our government is already monitoring our virtual communications/violating our rights...why not let them use their evil powers for good?

I'm not just thinking about kiddie porn, I'm referring to terrorist plots and other crimes that may result in a large loss of life. They have shown that the planners often use hotmail or phone texting to outline their plans.

I don't like the idea of Big Brother any more that you guys. Hell I get offended when moderators change my signature :lol: ...and I certainly don't like the idea of some agency going through my intimate email pics and vids...

[Hal-9000]

I recall getting a chill years ago. I was reading a how-to on retrieving your deleted emails from WIN 95/98.

This was about 2003, I was bright and shiny and new when it came to pc's and the internet.

It amazed me that somehow Windows kept track of/retained information that was deleted. Even at that early stage of my net infancy, I extrapolated the situation and imagined what if there was an online entity that somehow kept track of all communications, every user? I didn't know what a monster Google would become etc....but it certainly gave me unease thinking about the possibilities.

[RBP]

I guess I'm using a response that I often hear when we discuss guns. 'But hal we can't, all of the bad guys already have guns so we need protection' . Meaning that Pandora's Box has already been opened, now we have to live the world that we created.

similar sentiment...if we know or suspect that our government is already monitoring our virtual communications/violating our rights...why not let them use their evil powers for good?

I'm not just thinking about kiddie porn, I'm referring to terrorist plots and other crimes that may result in a large loss of life. They have shown that the planners often use hotmail or phone texting to outline their plans.

I don't like the idea of Big Brother any more that you guys. Hell I get offended when moderators change my signature :lol: ...and I certainly don't like the idea of some agency going through my intimate email pics and vids...

The major difference is a government law enforcement agency using a court to secure subpoena to look at private records. That is a far cry from a corporation taking it upon themselves to define criminality and play mole informant.

There was a recent, very important, supreme court decision that cell phones cannot be searched upon arrest without a warrant. Does a cellular company have access to that data? Probably. Should they be voluntarily turning it over based on their corporate definition of justice? Absolutely not. I am amazed that this Google scenario is even legal evidence.

And your argument makes the point in reverse also. Part of what makes this abhorrent is the potential for the slippery slope. But you suggested that since we're sliding anyway, release the brakes! That's precisely why this is really bad public policy.

Let's go back to 2006. While other company's complied. Google fought a request from the Justice Department (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5165530) to hand over internet search records. Google said it was to protect their proprietary information. Think about that for a second. Google will fight disclosure of internet based information if it benefits them. But will gleefully turn it over to the government if it suits their sense of justice? No hypocrisy there at all.

More recently Google has fought the NSA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/internet-companies-nsa_n_3896097.html). "Google argues that its First Amendment right to speak out, especially on a matter of great political and public importance, outweighs any harm to intelligence efforts". Really. So Google asserts that it can invoke constitutional protections for itself - even if it harms national intelligence efforts, but can also unilaterally decide when the data it holds can be used to violate the constitutional protections of a citizen-customer.

I didn't realize Google was the arbiter of digital constitutionality.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Tom Warren - The Verge


Google isn’t alone in its email scanning for child porn. Software giant Microsoft recently tipped off police to a man in Pennsylvania who has now been arrested and charged with receiving and sharing child porn through his OneDrive account. The arrest comes just days after news of Google’s own tip off to police, resulting in a 41-year-old restaurant worker being placed in custody for possessing child pornography.

Microsoft’s police tip offs should come as no surprise though. Court records last year showed that the company initiated a similar tip off to alert authorities about child pornography on a OneDrive account. Microsoft scans emails and cloud storage using its PhotoDNA technology that calculates a mathematical hash for an image of child sexual abuse that allows it to recognize photos automatically even if they have been altered. Google, Twitter, and Facebook all use Microsoft’s PhotoDNA tech, helping to build up a database of illegal photos.

Unlike Google, Microsoft’s email scanning doesn’t result in ad targeting as a result of keywords in messages. Google has been quick to point out that its scanning for illegal activities is strictly limited to child pornography, so if you’re planning an elaborate heist over Gmail then Google won’t report you to authorities. Privacy advocates still have concerns over emailing scanning, particularly when it relates to ads and the sharing of private information. Both cases highlight that online services are far from private, even if a child porn scanning system is seen as a necessary and welcome solution that produces results.