5 ms·

Google's actions were legal. The problem is, we, as a country, have still not come to an agreement on what 'privacy' should entail in this brave new world. Give

Google's actions were legal. The problem is, we, as a country, have still not come to an agreement on what 'privacy' should entail in this brave new world. Given that Google was not breaking the law in reporting this person, I would argue it would have been immoral for them to have sat on this information.

psykovsky 12y ago
Google won't be breaking the law either when they ask them to report some other stuff that might make a target out of you. I say it's moral for them to report on you when the time comes. You've got nothing to hide, amirite?
- pooper 12y ago
  How can Google and Microsoft comply with these requests and still claim that the emails they data held in Ireland is exempt? Moving on, what if blasphemy is illegal in another country and they (Google, Microsoft) spots someone who sent a a private message to someone else where they are making jokes about the prophet of Islam? What about countries ass-bent like India where you can't say anything bad about politicians? Will Google volunteer data about people who make bad jokes about politicians in private? I know it sounds ridiculous but you're right. Where does the slippery slope end? Problem is that on the other end... if they don't do this then they will have a PR nightmare. If people can spin their services as a safe haven for pedophiles, they will have a hard time.
  - reuwsaat 12y ago
    Did not know about those laws in India. That is mind-blowing! Not good. I personally agree with this line of logic. I'm working on a personal solution for moving my data off the cloud. But, that isn't a substitute for having this discussion as a country. Until we draw lines that slippery slope exists and these things are legal. EDIT: Regarding the safe-haven issue, I think that is a major issue with services like SpiderOak. They play up the ability to hide data. I personally believe we should be aiming for a solution that is closer to the locks on the doors of our homes. I feel secure at night, but I also know the police can knock it down by force if given a warrant. SpiderOak and other such services try to be more of a Fort Knox than a dead bolt. This is the cloud after all. Not a thumb drive in my safe in my home office.
    - pooper 12y ago
      About the safe haven issue, I'd imagine that if there is probable cause, they can just serve me a warrant rather than serving the guard who is on duty at Fort Knox. From what I know, it is wrong to bypass me to get to my data. If my data happens to reside outside the country, well tough luck. Transfer the case over to the other country and stop being a bully.
  - kumarm 12y ago
    Not sure why you are being down voted. Laws vary by country (Even if they are democratic for 50 year and more) and laws in some developing country appear stupid to any one in a developed country. US has Freedom of Speech. India has exact opposite. You can get into trouble because no matter what you do, you will offend someone.
  - true_religion 12y ago
    I don't think they're doing this to follow a particular law. They're doing it to follow their own internal ethics about child abuse. If they start reporting sedition and blasphemy, it'd mean that Google's ethics as a group has fundamentally changed, and we'd see far greater effects than their occasionally reporting someone.
TehCorwiz 12y ago
I do have one question. What if it wasn't child porn? Would it be right for them to go looking through your email for evidence of tax fraud? How about smoking weed? Where do you draw the line? The question isn't "do the ends justify the means?" the question should be "What if they're mistaken?" EDIT: While I stand by my questions I acknowledge the use of PhotoDNA as opposed to simply rifling through someone's inbox.
- krapp 12y ago
  Is Google legally liable if it's discovered that they're hosting emails with child porn attached? If so, then does that suggest that Google owns the email hosted on their servers, and has the right to examine them if they want?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I think Google's only liable if they know about it and didn't report. According to paragraph (f) of the 18 U.S. Code § 2258A, Protection of Privacy.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to— (1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider; (2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or (3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in sections (a) and (b). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A?quicktabs_8=2#quicktabs-8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A?quicktabs_8=...
- lclarkmichalek 12y ago
  Your question doesn't seem to be "What if they're mistaken?"; it seems you are more asking "will they stop at child porn?". Anyway, I'd agree with jfoutz, in saying that society has dealt with these problems before, and has managed to create a fairly good line as to where something must be reported, and where a person's privacy becomes more important. That's not to say they will manage to create that line again, but it's also not to say they won't. Regardless, I don't think it's an unavoidable slippery slope. As for "What if they're mistaken?", well I highly doubt anyone will be convicted off the basis of an automated image recognition tool alone. If they are mistaken from time to time, then the person will probably have a warrant (ha) issued for their email, and any investigation would follow normally. If they're mistaken very often (i.e. the PhotoDNA implementation turns out to be shit), then the police (or whoever is receiving these reports) will probably stop caring, and nothing will have changed.
jfoutz 12y ago
Doctors and Lawyers are allowed and even obligated to break confidentiality in some special cases. We'll probably come up with a collection of special protections and special exceptions for remote storage of our data. Although, it's pretty scary that some random person could send an email that would then send me to jail. I would hope the standard for possession is higher than "WTF is this? [delete]"
- icebraining 12y ago
  I would hope the standard for possession is higher than "WTF is this? [delete]" Well, according to the linked article, the guy was sending the picture, not receiving it.
  - saalweachter 12y ago
    I would still hope that "their email account sent an image" is only sufficient to start an investigation and not end it. Email accounts can be broken into, many people have access to the same computer, etc etc.
chrismcb 12y ago
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right nor that someone should do it. Yes, if Google knew about it they should do something. But Google shouldn't have known.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

psykovsky 12y ago

Google won't be breaking the law either when they ask them to report some other stuff that might make a target out of you. I say it's moral for them to report on you when the time comes. You've got nothing to hide, amirite?

pooper 12y ago
How can Google and Microsoft comply with these requests and still claim that the emails they data held in Ireland is exempt? Moving on, what if blasphemy is illegal in another country and they (Google, Microsoft) spots someone who sent a a private message to someone else where they are making jokes about the prophet of Islam? What about countries ass-bent like India where you can't say anything bad about politicians? Will Google volunteer data about people who make bad jokes about politicians in private? I know it sounds ridiculous but you're right. Where does the slippery slope end? Problem is that on the other end... if they don't do this then they will have a PR nightmare. If people can spin their services as a safe haven for pedophiles, they will have a hard time.
- reuwsaat 12y ago
  Did not know about those laws in India. That is mind-blowing! Not good. I personally agree with this line of logic. I'm working on a personal solution for moving my data off the cloud. But, that isn't a substitute for having this discussion as a country. Until we draw lines that slippery slope exists and these things are legal. EDIT: Regarding the safe-haven issue, I think that is a major issue with services like SpiderOak. They play up the ability to hide data. I personally believe we should be aiming for a solution that is closer to the locks on the doors of our homes. I feel secure at night, but I also know the police can knock it down by force if given a warrant. SpiderOak and other such services try to be more of a Fort Knox than a dead bolt. This is the cloud after all. Not a thumb drive in my safe in my home office.
  - pooper 12y ago
    About the safe haven issue, I'd imagine that if there is probable cause, they can just serve me a warrant rather than serving the guard who is on duty at Fort Knox. From what I know, it is wrong to bypass me to get to my data. If my data happens to reside outside the country, well tough luck. Transfer the case over to the other country and stop being a bully.
- kumarm 12y ago
  Not sure why you are being down voted. Laws vary by country (Even if they are democratic for 50 year and more) and laws in some developing country appear stupid to any one in a developed country. US has Freedom of Speech. India has exact opposite. You can get into trouble because no matter what you do, you will offend someone.
- true_religion 12y ago
  I don't think they're doing this to follow a particular law. They're doing it to follow their own internal ethics about child abuse. If they start reporting sedition and blasphemy, it'd mean that Google's ethics as a group has fundamentally changed, and we'd see far greater effects than their occasionally reporting someone.

TehCorwiz 12y ago

I do have one question. What if it wasn't child porn? Would it be right for them to go looking through your email for evidence of tax fraud? How about smoking weed? Where do you draw the line? The question isn't "do the ends justify the means?" the question should be "What if they're mistaken?" EDIT: While I stand by my questions I acknowledge the use of PhotoDNA as opposed to simply rifling through someone's inbox.

krapp 12y ago
Is Google legally liable if it's discovered that they're hosting emails with child porn attached? If so, then does that suggest that Google owns the email hosted on their servers, and has the right to examine them if they want?
- icebraining 12y ago
  I think Google's only liable if they know about it and didn't report. According to paragraph (f) of the 18 U.S. Code § 2258A, Protection of Privacy.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to— (1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider; (2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or (3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in sections (a) and (b). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A?quicktabs_8=2#quicktabs-8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A?quicktabs_8=...
lclarkmichalek 12y ago
Your question doesn't seem to be "What if they're mistaken?"; it seems you are more asking "will they stop at child porn?". Anyway, I'd agree with jfoutz, in saying that society has dealt with these problems before, and has managed to create a fairly good line as to where something must be reported, and where a person's privacy becomes more important. That's not to say they will manage to create that line again, but it's also not to say they won't. Regardless, I don't think it's an unavoidable slippery slope. As for "What if they're mistaken?", well I highly doubt anyone will be convicted off the basis of an automated image recognition tool alone. If they are mistaken from time to time, then the person will probably have a warrant (ha) issued for their email, and any investigation would follow normally. If they're mistaken very often (i.e. the PhotoDNA implementation turns out to be shit), then the police (or whoever is receiving these reports) will probably stop caring, and nothing will have changed.

jfoutz 12y ago

Doctors and Lawyers are allowed and even obligated to break confidentiality in some special cases. We'll probably come up with a collection of special protections and special exceptions for remote storage of our data. Although, it's pretty scary that some random person could send an email that would then send me to jail. I would hope the standard for possession is higher than "WTF is this? [delete]"

icebraining 12y ago
I would hope the standard for possession is higher than "WTF is this? [delete]" Well, according to the linked article, the guy was sending the picture, not receiving it.
- saalweachter 12y ago
  I would still hope that "their email account sent an image" is only sufficient to start an investigation and not end it. Email accounts can be broken into, many people have access to the same computer, etc etc.

chrismcb 12y ago

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right nor that someone should do it. Yes, if Google knew about it they should do something. But Google shouldn't have known.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]