What do you think of Google scanning your E-mail images...?

kencaz

New member
Apr 16, 2014
158
0
0
Visit site
Perhaps your English isn't very good, but your post really doesn't make sense.

Both companies use automated scanning. Both read your emails. Simple. Where's the difference?

What they do with the emails AFTER reading them is no concern of mine; the very act that they read them at all is the privacy violation here and MS is as guilty as Google.

The difference is that Google voluntarily gives up that information where MS takes them to court and fights for it's costumers like they are now...

I am aware that if you don't want something on the internet reaching the wrong hands then only recourse is not to put it out there. However, I would trust MS over Google or Apple any day.
 

peacefulberry

New member
Feb 4, 2013
695
0
0
Visit site
My take on this is simple: How much does it cost to host billions or even trillions of emails, attachments, and other data that ppl have attached to their email accounts? Now, how many customers actually pay for their email accounts? Not very many. So how do we expect the companies that absorb this enormous cost to actually maintain their "free" services? Ads! It's simple...if you want an ad free service, you should expect to pay for it. If not, someone/something else will.

Believe it or not, msft uses relative ads with their own advertising ids. (Check your privacy settings in 8.1 to see ad id settings.) And just like Google, they allow you to opt out of this type of advertising. Messaging, email, applications, and social media sites all use relative ads. Register a domain and host your own email accounts if you don't want 3rd party involvement. (Sorry but it's the truth. )
 

bsayegh

New member
Feb 10, 2013
301
0
0
Visit site
If thy search my emails and start advertising to me based on it, then I am against it. I don't want them using it to their advantage. On the other hand, if they search emails specifically to catch sexual predators or criminals, then I fully support it. I have nothing to hide and don't care if they search mine.
 

colinkiama

New member
Oct 13, 2013
2,842
0
0
Visit site
LOL I don't get what the big deal is. So what if someone can see my e-mail messages, images and other media. I have nothing to hide. I'm not a criminal. If you have nothing to hide then don't be worried about something like this.
 

quantum1990

New member
Aug 3, 2014
11
0
0
Visit site
LOL I don't get what the big deal is. So what if someone can see my e-mail messages, images and other media. I have nothing to hide. I'm not a criminal. If you have nothing to hide then don't be worried about something like this.

I agree with this. What I don't like is the fact that these people know every single thing about my life. Combine email scanning with spying on phonecalls/texts, following you around the street on CCTV, access to your entire internet history etc etc. It's all a scary thought, not because I have anything to hide, but because if it's like this now what is it going to be like in the future? Heck they probably even have a way of scanning the contents of physical letters without opening them!
 

peacefulberry

New member
Feb 4, 2013
695
0
0
Visit site
LOL I don't get what the big deal is. So what if someone can see my e-mail messages, images and other media. I have nothing to hide. I'm not a criminal. If you have nothing to hide then don't be worried about something like this.

Just to be clear, it's still a privacy issue. It's equivalent to the postal service opening up your mail, reading it, and stuffing it with ads based on the letter someone wrote to you. But, my point was that this is not a Google issue, these ads are used by many tech giants (including Microsoft) and the only way to avoid this is to purchase your own email services with no 3rd party involvement. #moneytalks #cashisking Lol
 

dlalonde

New member
Apr 16, 2013
1,013
0
0
Visit site
LOL I don't get what the big deal is. So what if someone can see my e-mail messages, images and other media. I have nothing to hide. I'm not a criminal. If you have nothing to hide then don't be worried about something like this.

Oh! So basically you're OK with the police barging in randomly in your home and searching everywhere, through your mail, your bank documents, your porn (if any), and so on?

"The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement."

That's the danger with authorities having the right to put their nose in our business and decide what is OK and not. Don't get me wrong, child porn is 100% wrong (and disgusting), no question there. But you know, if the police started searching every home everywhere, they'd catch a lot of pedophiles, drug dealers, murderers and so on. So why not just do that?

In itself, most of us have nothing to hide per se... but do we want to show everything? There's a difference.
 

colinkiama

New member
Oct 13, 2013
2,842
0
0
Visit site
Just to be clear, it's still a privacy issue. It's equivalent to the postal service opening up your mail, reading it, and stuffing it with ads based on the letter someone wrote to you. But, my point was that this is not a Google issue, these ads are used by many tech giants (including Microsoft) and the only way to avoid this is to purchase your own email services with no 3rd party involvement. #moneytalks #cashisking Lol
You definitely watched the scroogled ad lool.

Yeah it's wrong but someone has gotta pay the bills. No one is stopping you from purchasing your own email services.
 
Last edited:

colinkiama

New member
Oct 13, 2013
2,842
0
0
Visit site
Oh! So basically you're OK with the police barging in randomly in your home and searching everywhere, through your mail, your bank documents, your porn (if any), and so on?

"The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement."

That's the danger with authorities having the right to put their nose in our business and decide what is OK and not. Don't get me wrong, child porn is 100% wrong (and disgusting), no question there. But you know, if the police started searching every home everywhere, they'd catch a lot of pedophiles, drug dealers, murderers and so on. So why not just do that?

In itself, most of us have nothing to hide per se... but do we want to show everything? There's a difference.
There are obviously restrictions when it comes to real life and our homes but due to the open, powerful nature internet, anything can happen. Everything is in the terms and conditions (even though no-one cares to read it). If you don't like GMail don't use it. We do have privacy of course but due to how dangerous the internet can be, security must be put first of privacy , even if it means scanning through mail. If you don't like it, you are free to write letters the old fashioned way.
 

SSgt Bruskowiz

New member
Jan 23, 2014
1,188
0
0
Visit site
Its al in the eye's of the beholder....one mans family photos is somebody else kiddyporn. I have photos of my little daughter bathing......so arrest me. Here is someone taking in for questioning because he took pictures on the beach of playing kids.....it was just a guy making pics for a brochure of that beach. He was dragged away like a criminal.
 

realwarder

New member
Dec 31, 2012
3,689
0
0
Visit site
LOL I don't get what the big deal is. So what if someone can see my e-mail messages, images and other media. I have nothing to hide. I'm not a criminal. If you have nothing to hide then don't be worried about something like this.

The issue with that view is how far you want to go. For instance if you have nothing to hide then is the government having a video camera in every room at home fine? How about remotely viewing your phone camera and audio 24/7.

Generally people have limits of what they consider personal space.. And what one person thinks is acceptable is different from another's, irrelevant of whether you have "something to hide"
 

dlalonde

New member
Apr 16, 2013
1,013
0
0
Visit site
There are obviously restrictions when it comes to real life and our homes but due to the open, powerful nature internet, anything can happen. Everything is in the terms and conditions (even though no-one cares to read it). If you don't like GMail don't use it. We do have privacy of course but due to how dangerous the internet can be, security must be put first of privacy , even if it means scanning through mail. If you don't like it, you are free to write letters the old fashioned way.

Actually, given that we do most of those important things online, where is the line between "real life and our homes" and the rest? That's my point. Reading our mail and our emails is exactly the same thing.

Obviously though, the "if you don't like Gmail don't use it" is the answer to this problem. But the rhetoric of "security comes first" and "I have nothing to hide" is extremely dangerous because, like I said, given the number of things we do on the Web now, the line between the Web and "real life" is becoming thinner every minute. The fact remains that, as much as I don't want anyone in my mail, my bank account and so on, I don't want them in my emails, my online bank interface and so on. It's just that, on the Web, it's less disturbing because you don't see it. But the principle remains.

The issue with that view is how far you want to go. For instance if you have nothing to hide then is the government having a video camera in every room at home fine? How about remotely viewing your phone camera and audio 24/7.

Generally people have limits of what they consider personal space.. And what one person thinks is acceptable is different from another's, irrelevant of whether you have "something to hide"

Exactly!

Its al in the eye's of the beholder....one mans family photos is somebody else kiddyporn. I have photos of my little daughter bathing......so arrest me. Here is someone taking in for questioning because he took pictures on the beach of playing kids.....it was just a guy making pics for a brochure of that beach. He was dragged away like a criminal.

To be honest, although there have been some documented arrests based on errors, anyone with a bit of logic knows the difference between child porn and a picture of your baby bathing. So, in the eye of the law, no one man's family photos is not somebody else's kiddyporn.
 

fatclue_98

Retired Moderator
Apr 1, 2012
9,146
1
38
Visit site
The ends do not justify the means. Yes, they caught a POS who gets his rocks off with children and deserves to be made into someone's b***h in the clink but companies and governments just LOVE to use situations like this for their own nefarious purposes. I'm Cuban so I'm not as jaded as some who've lived their entire lives under a blanket of freedom. Trust me, this never leads to anything good.
 

peacefulberry

New member
Feb 4, 2013
695
0
0
Visit site
Also, I just wanted to clarify something: The technology used to catch the child photos is called "PhotoDNA" and it was actually developed by Microsoft and given to Google, Facebook, and others as an agreement between tech companies and child advocates to help stop this illegal activity. Its not actually ppl reading emails, but this technology assigns numbers to colors/gradients/shadings so that an inappropriate photo will equal a certain number. If the photo matches these numbers, then the photos are examined and turned over to law enforcement. You can read more about this technology here http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/wh...t-for-child-porn-was-not-a-privacy-violation/

My comments involved using adwords for relative advertising to email users of free accounts.
 

colinkiama

New member
Oct 13, 2013
2,842
0
0
Visit site
I have a feeling that google is trying to take over the world. There's something fishy about the way they operate. Despite all of this though, they have a damn good search engine.
 

BB10fanatic

New member
Aug 14, 2013
14
0
0
Visit site
One of the reasons I'm trying WP is because even though I rallied against MSFT in the 90's I prefer their business model. Take my money upfront, don't sell your access to my information, however anonymized it may be, it's just not a comforting business model.
 

peacefulberry

New member
Feb 4, 2013
695
0
0
Visit site
One of the reasons I'm trying WP is because even though I rallied against MSFT in the 90's I prefer their business model. Take my money upfront, don't sell your access to my information, however anonymized it may be, it's just not a comforting business model.

I don't know if you know, but Microsoft sells access to your information as well. It's called targeted, relative, behavioral or personalized advertising. Most companies (big and small) do in some way by using cookies, advertising ids, web beacons, ad words, etc. Here's a screenshot of Microsoft's policy about this. You can opt out of most tracking, but I would def use incognito on chrome or private browsing on ie. Screenshot_2014-08-07-09-34-34.jpg
 

RavenSword

New member
Feb 15, 2014
384
0
0
Visit site
I'm still back and forth wether I care about googles so called invasion of privacy. It's all anonymous data as far as I know. And you do get good services out of it.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,916
Messages
2,242,890
Members
428,004
Latest member
hetb