Oh oh. Seems to be well informed on the ways of the ***** ^^^^; When I was a kid it was puppies and fruit pastilles fhey used.
Hypothetical situation: IF the images were of your daughter (or son for that matter ) - and you knew that Google had the name(s) of the peado looking at them - what would you expect Google to do for you ? - Don't tell me you'd want Google NOT to expose the perverts. There are matters that are far more important than 'invasion' of privacy.
The point is that Google shouldn't know. It's like the Royal Mail reading your letters before you do in case the letter mentioned criminal activity. The invasion of privacy is wrong and should be stopped.
Aye, and i'm constantly emailing people about drug deals you dullard. I'd better watch in case the Feds batter down my door.
I'm not sure how this all worked out - but if Google is auto scanning them for pictures (the same way it already auto scans to display adverts) - isn't it somewhat similar to the Royal Mail using sniffer dogs to find drugs and bombs, etc? By the way I think I'm very much on the side of privacy - I just think that using the likes of algorithms to pick up genuine crime might not be a big invasion of privacy since there is no human involved (rather than say some hairy IT bloke hoaking through your mail, then ****ing to the nude selfie yer missus sent ye).
In principal I would agree with you - that is why I suggested a 'hypothetical' (personal) situation. In these circumstances the 'personal' aspect overrides any invasion of privacy. We already have a lot of 'invasion' of privacy - CCTV, police CRB checks Etc, It has been mentioned in this thread that if you have nothing to hide, you won't be worried. There are many people who know many personal details of ALL of us - it is how that information is used that sometimes is dictated by circumstances that ( as I previously said ) are MORE important than any invasion of privacy.
I understand you are right and it was a scanning type thing that found the offending e-mail. I do think it is different to the sniffer dog analogy insofar as it is more invasive, whether that invasion is automated or not. With that said, the google privacy policy is pretty clear. Under the heading "information we share", The google privacy policy reads: If those are the terms the ***** signed up to then his rights haven't really been infringed upon. I would liken it to someone agreeing that their lockers can be searched if needs be when they start a new job. It only becomes a problem when the employer actually searches their locker. As a related aside, I think the Data Protection Act in the UK should offer the public real confidence that there are real consequences for those organisations that don't handle personal data properly.
Is having your luggage searched before getting on a plane also an invasion of privacy? Probably is, but its a reasonable price to pay. I dont see this as any different.
Possibly not, but where does it stop? The answer is that it doesn't. More and more snooping is the states only answer. You can't even slash your neighbours tyres these days without CCTV catching it all. Gone are the days where you could casually walk home from the pub masturbating. And as Ed has already shown us, the war on terror is a red herring.
The only invasion of privacy here that I care about was the child's Good for Google if they help put away either the person who took the photos or those that look at them.
I find it rather disappointing that you have chosen to respond in a fairly reasonable, yet humorous fashion.
