Google gets a man arrested after detecting child porn in his email

[insect]

Is it OK for Ford Motor Company to compare your speed to the posted speed and send the information to the cops for say the automatic generation of a ticket? Would you still buy their cars?

Finally, want absolute law and order at the price of personal freedoms? That would be one of the foundations of Fascism. No, don't get excited.. this is OK and there are some appealing points in Fascism just like there are in any historically popular line of reasoning. However, I much prefer personal freedoms and I'm willing to put up with some risk, chaos, and impacts to law and order in support of them.

If I own the ford and/or its in the terms of service of use of the car (until such a time as I own it) then yes, I expect they could do that. If you lease the car, they do send the information to law enforcement if they feel their product is in jeopardy. Usually not though because if you wreck it you pay for it, which is different than digital data.

Also, no one wants absolute law. What I do want is a safe society and that means giving up some personal freedoms. Absolute personal freedom would be absolute anarchy, which is arguably worse than absolute law.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Thats a nice heartwarming story about Google doing the right thing. Maybe next time they infiltrate your email to checkup on what your doing to make sure its nothing bad, they can send me some pictures of your girlfriend in a thong to make their troubles worthwhile. By the sounds of it you won't care.

Listen, I understand that with Gmail's small letters they grant themselves access to scan users emails... you are agreeing to their terms of service. (Talking about a certain services fineprint like Yahoo, Gmail, Outlook etc is an entirely different topic on its own)
Invasion of privacy is what I am talking about, its wrong and in most cases, unlawful. And did you just say Google can get sued for allowing criminal activity? LOL. Thats so ridiculous on so many levels I'm not wasting a sentence addressing it.

It's called LIFE. It's called FREEDOM.
You take the good with the bad in a free environment. You can't force people to do and act certain ways without removing the most basic of civil liberties and 'natural rights'.
How would you like if it the police came to your house and scanned through, read and examined everything in your mailbox everyday? Thats called COMMUNISM.

Civilians are entitled to their privacy (well, used to be), as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, NO, I don't have an issue with it. I'd rather that dude be at home on his PC 'getting it out of his system' then be 'plugged up' at the local park.

There is nothing more dangerous then a horny guy with no internet.

You're taking this whole thing out of context.

You make a decent argument, so I know you can understand the difference between google scanning emails to catch pedophiles and the police breaking down your door just to see if maybe you disagree with the dear leader.

Convicted sex offenders don't live by the same rules we do. Don't defend them using the same logic you'd use to defend an average person who just wants his bank account info safe.

Having his emails read is probably the smallest invasion of privacy this guy endures daily. His crimes are public record, and he must notify his neighbors of his crimes. He literally has less privacy than an A list celeb or a person running for president.

I know you're not angry that this wacko was caught... you're angry because you think the way his privacy was violated might happen to others. This guy sacrificed his own privacy when he committed those crimes. Don't compare him to us.

 

[Guest]

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

 

[captaincranky]

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Listen, if you're going to blast through here trying to impress us with your style, don't bother.

And next time, give the attribution. Which in this case is Benjamin Franklin, not "guest".

Or to paraphrase Old Ben, "those who would commit plagiary to gain esteem of self, or to garner the esteem of others, deserve neither".

 

[Guest]

Different guest here:

The way I see it, Google is a private company that offers ITS services, for free, to anyone who AGREES to the ToS that everyone MUST accept in order to you GOOGLE's said free services. They are not YOUR services. They are not the government's services. They are a private entity's services of which they COULD charge money for. They (google) are well within their rights to look into every email used because it never belonged to you in the first place. Set up your own email service company and then you can set your own rules as to who or what has access to the emails and how those emails can be used. If you don't like what google can do with your emails USE AN ALTERNATIVE. If I owned a coffee shop that offers free wifi and some criminal comes in, opens up his/her laptop, and starts posting information of people he/she wants to kill and I happen to notice it IM TIPPING THAT TO THE COPS. But it's within his rights to have freedom? Not on MY property, in MY shop, on MY wifi network. Any owner of a restaurant on private property can ask you to leave. You do not have the RIGHT to be there, they ALLOW you to be there just like how google ALLOWS you to use their service.

 

[Guest]

"“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Which is exactly why I wouldn't expect complete and utter privacy since I use hotmail or gmail. I have agreed to their ToS therefore I gave up my liberties on THEIR services.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

If looking at photos is all this guy wants to do, what is the harm in that.

You're kidding right? This vermin is a twisted fcuk and should be exterminated.

 

[SNGX1275]

... you're angry because you think the way his privacy was violated might happen to others. This guy sacrificed his own privacy when he committed those crimes. Don't compare him to us.

That is true he gave up some freedoms by committing a crime prior to this, but was that why he email got scanned and he got caught for this crime? If not, then this absolutely could happen to others that haven't been convicted of a crime.

 

[Guest]

Captaincrainkey

The law, as to where the bar is set regarding, "child pornography", is constantly being lowered, at the caprice of individual judges, and lobbied for lowering even further vigorously, by right to life and other such ultra right wing religious/conservative groups. In short, for appearances sake, we are reverting to Puritanism.

Please explain, Under what circumstances is child pornography or child sex crimes ok? Lowering the bar by conservative groups? Im sorry,but not everything falls under your leftest political agenda. If sex offenders are really people you wish to defend, by all means, have your kids play in their front yards to prove a point. Not many others would follow suit.

As far as google snooping your emails? Quit crying about it already. Its their free service! Not your personal property. If you really want to be private, you have the ability to create your own email servers. Or go through other services. There are alternatives. After all, google is just trying to protect themselves. And the dirtbag that was caught deserves everything and more of whats coming to him.

 

[Seventh Reign]

Google's sniffing inside your emails without any authorization is despicable.

It reminds me to dump their email service once and for all. The amount of spam falling into it has been overwhelming anyway.

Sounds like you have something to hide ...

 

[VitalyT]

Sounds like you have something to hide ...

Sounds like you are either an NSA nark or a Google's snitch...

 

[captaincranky]

Captaincrainkey

Please explain, Under what circumstances is child pornography or child sex crimes ok? Lowering the bar by conservative groups? Im sorry,but not everything falls under your leftest political agenda. If sex offenders are really people you wish to defend, by all means, have your kids play in their front yards to prove a point. Not many others would follow suit.

Well, no I'm actually talking about nude, or even semi-clothed photography of "children" under the age of 18.

When someone is below the age of majority, they can't be photographer in the nude, and now even in see through clothing.

And while I don't think that is always in a "child's" best interest, many top model prospect has gone on to a successful career as a professional model and/or actress. Brooke Shields immediately springs to mind with the two, (quite controversial), films she starred in, namely "Blue Lagoon", & , "Pretty Baby". "Pretty Baby, in particular, was a treatise on childhood prostitution, and showed a tender young Ms. Shields, topless , with buds instead of bosoms.

I still think that nude photography can be smut or an eclectic form of art. Nudes in statue and in painting have survived centuries, and are held in the highest esteem. Michelangelo's "David" springs to mind.

Many decades ago nude photography would skate through, "Fotomat", and other places. But, the minute there was CONTACT between two nude individuals, the police were called.

In today's heated climate, sanctimoniously charged society, a parent could get them self arrested as a "purveyor of child pornography, if they sent their 14 year old daughter to the public pool, in in last year's white bathing suit. Even someone as self righteous as yourself.

I thought I had made that clear at this point:

In any case, any such declaration of "child pornography", never seems to distinguish between the, "eight year old girl with a goat", or a "17 year old woman in a pair of wet panties".

Which is so very obviously true, since it would be "illegal" to show the material in question to the general public at large, as then we would all be criminals.

Apparently zealots such as yourself, have spent too much time picketing abortion clinics and lobbying for teaching "Creationism" in the public school system, to be able understand the finer point of syntax and intent, in your own native language.

So, I certainly wouldn't want my daughter playing in front of a (true) "sex offender's" home. But if that, "sex offender" was railroaded on a statutory rape charge, because he turned 18, and his long time girlfriend hadn't quite reached that plateau, I'd expect the ultra righteous and indignant such as yourself would be out picketing in force, placards & nooses in hand.

I'd further go on to say, if that house was the residence of a Hollywood producer, you'd be there with bells on, trying to pimp her off

To call me "leftist" is a real travesty. If anything, I come closer to being a Nazi than any other party affiliation.

I'm not as stupid or as right wing as you though, or as illiterate.

I think your best mechanism of coping with the mores of contemporary society would be to move to Utah and marry your sister(s).

Do have a nice day, and a pleasant tomorrow.

Yours Truly..... ,Well you know.

 

[cliffordcooley]

You're kidding right? This vermin is a twisted fcuk and should be exterminated.

No I'm not kidding! If extermination was out of the question back in 1994, harassing them over looking at photos is pathetic. We either exterminate them, or leave them alone as long as they remain in their own little world.

 

[captaincranky]

No I'm not kidding! If extermination was out of the question back in 1994, harassing them over looking at photos is pathetic. We either exterminate them, or leave them alone as long as they remain in their own little world.

I really fail to understand why you're defending the idea of permitting this person, "simply let them look", without considering what they might be looking at.

In any event, I can supply you with links to adult sites, from mild to completely "gonzo" pornography", some which could be deemed art, and everything in between.

"Snuff Films" are the hardest core of hard core "pornography", should this individual be allowed to look at pictures of children being killed in them?

(The links provided would be by PM of course).

And as I said before, if this person was "choking the chicken", to girls in panties in the Sears Catalog, no harm, no foul.

When you have sampled the vast diversity of what porn is, then might have an open enough mind to realize what you're saying or failing to comprehend.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I really fail to understand why you're defending the idea of permitting this person, "simply let them look", without considering what they might be looking at.

And I fail to understand why we didn't slit his throat in 94, but yet harass him over a lessor offense that harms no one. Find the **** *** that is producing the photos and leave him alone, since we chose to keep him alive in 1994. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with being a spectator. No matter how much the thought disgust others, watching is not a crime.

The topic though is Google taking circumstantial evidence and turning it over to the authorities. Which automatically made him guilty (guilty of?) because he has a previous conviction. Now the question of whether this simply harasses those that store the photos, or does it help in find source locations? And speaking of spectators, I wonder how many NSA agents view child material trying to find the source of the problem. Surely they are just as guilty for looking themselves. The whole idea of being prosecuted for looking at something is ridiculous.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

No I'm not kidding! If extermination was out of the question back in 1994, harassing them over looking at photos is pathetic. We either exterminate them, or leave them alone as long as they remain in their own little world.

He's not just looking at photo's, they just haven't managed to pin anything on him yet. Sicko's like him never reform, they'll always be serial offenders and the sooner they're eradicated the better off we'll be.
Murderers, thieves, rapists etc. can be dealt with as per the law but child killers and molesters should be hanged, drawn and quartered as far as I'm concerned or at least locked up for life without the possibility of parole but I don't see why should taxpayers should foot the bill for him for the rest of his miserable life. If I knew where to find him I'd organise a lynch mob and believe me, there'd be no shortage of volunteers.

 

[dividebyzero]

but child killers and molesters should be hanged, drawn and quartered as far as I'm concerned or at least locked up for life with no possibility of parole but I don't see why should taxpayers should foot the bill for him for the rest of his miserable life.

Combine the both. Lock them up in general population (or better still let them fend for themselves in the violent offenders wing) with a list of their offences printed on their jumpsuit.

I guess that qualifies as a human rights violation though.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Combine the both. Lock them up in general population (or better still let them fend for themselves in the violent offenders wing) with a list of their offences printed on their jumpsuit.

I guess that qualifies as a human rights violation though.

You may have something there, child murderers/offenders don't tend to last long in the slammer.

 

[captaincranky]

Well, perhaps they should make the most heinous of sex crimes with pre-pubescent children capital offenses..

This would lead to wonderful a litany of jokes (*). Such as, "the priest, the swim coach, and the vice principal walked into the gas chamber". So the priest says......." ". Well perhaps that's not as funny as I thought it could be. Either that or I'm having a creative dry spell. The world deserves a good, "healthy", dose of gallows now and then...

The Strawbs did a song called, "Hanging in the gallery". The first line of which is, "Is it the painter or the picture hanging in the gallery". He goes on to question the dynamic of the viewer and the creator in depth, and comes to the conclusion that it is a circular series of events.

Although, a person might need a philosophers reserve, rather than a preacher's fire and brimstone to fully understand it.

If we lived in," @cliffordcooley world", we might be giving gun permits to former armed robbers, because if we didn't, "we'd be persecuting them for crimes of the past".

In any case, you've either failed to understand my posts on this topic, or patently chose not to.

Anyway, here's most of the song, if anyone would care to take a shot at, "wrapping their head around it", (as the children say).

 

[cliffordcooley]

If we lived in "cliffordcooleyworld", we might be giving gun permits to former armed robbers, because if we didn't, "we'd be persecuting them for crimes of the past".

Not my world, God's world! But then I already know you are beyond forgiving. I shudder at the thought of how the world would be if we lived in your smutty world. Ohh, wait we do which is why we have this topic problem.

 

[captaincranky]

Not my world, God's world! But then I already know you are beyond forgiving. I shudder at the thought of how the world would be if we lived in your smutty world. Ohh, wait we do which is why we have this topic problem.

News flash Cliff, ADULT porn is legal. Just because you can't afford it because you're paying alimony, and think you don't have to pay child support for a variety of reasons, is no reason to spoil it for the rest of us.

In fact, the LEGAL California porn industry, does numbers in the BILLIONS.

And remember @cliffordcooley I didn't make this all that personal, you did. We're twins! You can't shut up, and you can't lose either.

OTOH, I don't purport to be speaking for "Gawd".

So these gold diggers wouldn't be interested in me because of my bicycle, LCD display watch and beach thongs then... How disappointing.

You may have something there, child murderers/offenders don't tend to last long in the slammer.

I simply hated bringing this over from another thread but still, on the strength of this, I don't think you'd last that long in prison either... ROFLMAO

 

[Guest]

The courts have already rendered the TOS of websites meaningless, just ask Craiglist.

Other court cases have ruled Google services aren't "private" because it operates as a digital public commons by their own admission, same with Youtube. Maybe Google gets a special double standard though because of its close relationship with the NSA. It'd be par with the course in today's political landscape.

 

[JohnMoser]

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Listen, if you're going to blast through here trying to impress us with your style, don't bother.

And next time, give the attribution. Which in this case is Benjamin Franklin, not "guest".

Or to paraphrase Old Ben, "those who would commit plagiary to gain esteem of self, or to garner the esteem of others, deserve neither".

You do know what quotation marks mean, don't you?

 

[captaincranky]

You do know what quotation marks mean, don't you?

They can mean a couple of different things, "shock quotes", and that sort of thing.

Do you understand what I mean when I say, "if you're going to plant your feet on a soapbox, best preach your own sermon, and not one you borrowed from someone else".

 

[DAOWAce]

I'm totally fine with this.

It doesn't inconvenience me and I don't do anything illegal, so I'm fine with having an automated service scanning my e-mail looking for illegal stuff.

What I'd like now is for spam e-mail to be cured. It's a plague on humanity.