• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

The Official EADD Paedo Discussion Thread v3 -Nonce-tastic

It may or may not do but I'd suggest your ability to decipher meaning from words could do with a bit of a brush up too. The point I was making is surely pretty obvious, no? In case it wasn't...

Google hand over the details of one nonce from their millions of users. Statistically I think we can be fairly sure there is more than one who uses their email service. However, Google don't want to lose lots of customers and cause too big a stink (Gmail - The Paedo's Choice!) so just the one which implies that they are very careful about what is sent and stored on their email service (cos they handed the one and only paedo who uses it over after all) whilst also providing a handy 'legitimate reason' for them to be reading everybody's emails. It's a cynical ploy and a meaningless gesture.
 
wibble said:
Everything I read about childbirth just makes the reality worse and worse, boke.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I legit gipped a bit reading that. And yeah the Gmail thing is unsettling from a privacy point of view, but if they're finding paedos cos of it I can't complain too much. I value that slightly higher than my own privacy. They just best focus on finding paedos, murderers etc. rather than getting people on petty crimes, which I imagine (hope?) they would.
 
I do believe that goes some way to justifying my :sus: attitude towards this Gmail thing. We know for a fact that's not why they read emails. They read them for marketing purposes to sell on the details to their advertisers. Turning over the occasional nonce is all the justification they need... as long as you truly believe they've only had one single incident of child pornography sent via Gmail ever of course.
 
I'd like to think they didn't announce the rest, or it's something they've only just started doing. I will admit the targeted adverts freak me out but they're mostly for tea, wedding arrangements, and legal drugs so far.
 
Shambles said:
I do believe that goes some way to justifying my :sus: attitude towards this Gmail thing. We know for a fact that's not why they read emails. They read them for marketing purposes to sell on the details to their advertisers. Turning over the occasional nonce is all the justification they need... as long as you truly believe they've only had one single incident of child pornography sent via Gmail ever of course.
Click to expand...

" 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."

So no, they are not using child abuse images as justification for anything.
And how do you know this is the only person ever caught this way ?
I very much doubt he's the first, but if he is then he won't be the last.

And in case you hadn't read the article linked above, the guy had previous so maybe they were asked to monitor him.

If thats the case then good on them.
 
There is a fine line between privacy & public interest... it's a very grey area as to when it becomes acceptable to break that privacy for the greater good. When does it become too intrusive?

I was going to do a dissertation on surveillance laws / right to privacy in the UK but there wasn't really enough to talk about. Or at least not 10,000 words worth.
 
There's really no point arguing the toss. As soon as they played the paedo card they won the public opinion instantly. Some people deserve what they get frankly.
 
bummer said:
" 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."

So no, they are not using child abuse images as justification for anything.
And how do you know this is the only person ever caught this way ?
I very much doubt he's the first, but if he is then he won't be the last.

And in case you hadn't read the article linked above, the guy had previous so maybe they were asked to monitor him.

If thats the case then good on them.
Click to expand...

Can you send me your email address and password then. I just need to check that you're not a paedo. Don't worry, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
 
Shambles said:
There's really no point arguing the toss. As soon as they played the paedo card they won the public opinion instantly. Some people deserve what they get frankly.
Click to expand...

Are you saying there will be people out there dropping their toast in shock when they read that their e-mails are scanned ?

Wasn't it the head of google that said "don't expect privacy on the internet ?"

This isn't "playing the peado card"
Google didn't hold a press conference, it was reported in a local newspaper and some bbc hack is regurgitating it.

They don't need to win over the general public, most people don't give a toss.

But yes, going round in circles about this is fairly pointless
 
parttime crackhead said:
Can you send me your email address and password then. I just need to check that you're not a paedo. Don't worry, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Click to expand...

Sending out data to randoms and accepting that google scan shit is two completely different things.
 
So, you're happy for Google to read your emails but not me. Why?

Are you cool with Google grassing up all crimes spotted through sniffing through people's email, or is it only paedos?
 
parttime crackhead said:
So, you're happy for Google to read your emails but not me. Why?

Are you cool with Google grassing up all crimes spotted through sniffing through people's email, or is it only paedos?
Click to expand...

What are you offering me in return ?
Google can read my stuff because I use their servers to store stuff and their engine to find things online.
Its a transaction that I am happy with.

If I was that bothered i'd use other e-mail services / search engines

As for other crimes, thats actually an interesting question.
Am i cool with it ? I guess that would have to depend on what the crime is.

But asking me what I think is right or wrong doesn't change that we all know the way things are. Google use is not mandatory.
 
Aye fair enough, but I'm sure the claim was that they don't actually read your emails, they just scan them with some software to target ads at you. What is their ad targeting software doing identifying paedos?
 
^ ive thought more about your 1st question.
The technology companies have helped to create something that makes sharing CP easier, and got fabulously rich doing so.
So I think they have a moral responsibility to do something to clamp down on it.
The same could be said for ordering hydro equipment or RCs.
If my door gets kicked in one day i will of course be outraged.

I quess this makes me a hypocrite. But aren't we all ? We all hate coppers when we're getting speeding tickets but our tune changes when they are protecting us from ruffians or looking for our kids when they go astray.

As for your second question I believe its image recognition software that can spot previously found child abuse images.
 
I've not looked into it, but is there anything in the T&C's that says Google screens your e-mails... I'm assuming not otherwise it wouldn't have been as newsworthy.
 
They've been caught breaking their own T&Cs before. Tech companies go one of two ways with T&Cs - usually both ways actually. They either make them so incomprehensible nobody without a law degree has any real hope of understanding the big picture or they just ignore them and get a minor slap on the wrist at most if caught out.
 
bummer said:
I quess this makes me a hypocrite. But aren't we all ? We all hate coppers when we're getting speeding tickets but our tune changes when they are protecting us from ruffians or looking for our kids when they go astray.

As for your second question I believe its image recognition software that can spot previously found child abuse images.
Click to expand...

No. I can't stand coppers, they don't protect me from ruffians and I don't have any kids to go astray.

That doesn't really relate to my second question. What is google's ad targeting software doing searching for child porn? I completely agree that they should report someone for child porn if they accidentally find it, I don't really agree that they should be scanning people's emails for anything other than their stated purpose (to target ads at you). Unless they were planning on serving up some child porn ads and then changed their minds...
 
parttime crackhead said:
That doesn't really relate to my second question. What is google's ad targeting software doing searching for child porn? I completely agree that they should report someone for child porn if they accidentally find it, I don't really agree that they should be scanning people's emails for anything other than their stated purpose (to target ads at you). Unless they were planning on serving up some child porn ads and then changed their minds...
Click to expand...

Well if they are scanning all the traffic anyway it probably doesn't cost them too much time, money or effort to also add to their software something that looks for C.P.
As I've already said I did hear ( on radio2 IIRC that they have software that can recognize known images )
I think they've felt some pressure from governments and public opinion to do something.

So I guess the answer to "whats it doing looking for cp ?" is "looking for CP"

I disagreed with shambles that the particular article linked above was google "playing the paedo card"
( because, as Ive said already it didn't come from them )
But it doesn't do them any harm either.

It does creep me out a little to think that we're both probably getting bumped up a list somewhere just by mentioning cp, but hey-ho
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top