Google Fights Pedophiles

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

Houston Metro Detective David Nettles

A Houston man has been arrested after Google sent a tip to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children saying the man had explicit images of a child in his email, according to Houston police.

The man was a registered sex offender, convicted of sexually assaulting a child in 1994, reports Tim Wetzel at KHOU Channel 11 News in Houston.

"He was keeping it inside of his email. I can't see that information, I can't see that photo, but Google can," Detective David Nettles of the Houston Metro Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce told Channel 11.

After Google reportedly tipped off the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Center alerted police, which used the information to get a warrant.

A search of the man's other devices revealed more suspicious images and text messages. Police arrested him and he's being held on a $200,000 bond.

On one hand, most people would certainly applaud the use of technology to scan email in a case like this.

On the other, debate rages about how much privacy users can expect when using Google's services like email. In a word: none.

A year ago, in a court brief, Google said as much. Then, in April, after a class-action case against Google for email scanning fell apart, Google updated its terms of service to warn people that it was automatically analyzing emails .

Considering Google has been working to fight online child sexual abuse since 2006, it stands to reason the company would scan emails looking for those sorts of images. Google has never come right out and said so, but hinted strongly at it about a year ago when Jacquelline Fuller, Director of Google Giving, specifically mentioned the National Center's "CyberTipline" in a blog post . The CyberTipline receives leads and tips regarding suspected crimes.

Fuller explained:

In 2011, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s (NCMEC’s) Cybertipline Child Victim Identification Program reviewed 17.3 million images and videos of suspected child sexual abuse. ...

Since 2008, we’ve used 'hashing' technology to tag known child sexual abuse images, allowing us to identify duplicate images which may exist elsewhere. ...

We’re in the business of making information widely available, but there’s certain 'information' that should never be created or found. We can do a lot to ensure it’s not available online—and that when people try to share this disgusting content they are caught and prosecuted.

We reached out to Google for comment and will update the story if we hear back.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-spotted-explicit-images-child-160034446.html

An interesting bit on the never ending war between privacy and security.

**Iron_Captain**

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Just leaving that here. I think Google shouldnt snoop around in peoples mail, even if it helps to catch criminals.

**LordofHats**

I've never much liked Google myself (I'm pretty sure they're trying to take over the world). Obviously someone there is quite passionate about using the business to do something good. I'd say people could go to a different service if they disapproved but I'm willing to bet the other major email providers do this same thing to varying degrees. I'm always telling people their private info isn't as private as they think it is for this exact reason.

Maybe someday someone will sue a company over this stuff (but I doubt it'll be a pedophile cause they're not gonna win in hell) and we'll see how that pans out.

**Cheesecat**

LordofHats wrote:
I've never much liked Google myself (I'm pretty sure they're trying to take over the world).

Why the hate?

**LordofHats**

Cheesecat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I've never much liked Google myself (I'm pretty sure they're trying to take over the world).

Why the hate?

Cause I'm a hater

**Peregrine**

Not concerned about this for two reasons:

1) It's entirely automated unless you have indisputably committed a crime. This isn't a person reading your email looking for anything "suspicious", or even a keyword system that sends every email with "bomb" to a human reader, it's an automated system that (as far as we know) only flags very specific files that are clearly illegal. So there isn't the same kind of problem with privacy violations that broader searches, like the NSA ones, have.

2) It's being done through the normal court system with probable cause, a legitimate search warrant, and a trial where the accused can defend themselves. This is not the NSA and their secret courts rubber-stamping secret warrants, with "national security" as a convenient excuse to deny your rights to fight back.

The only real issue here would be someone sending illegal material to a person they hate to get the police called on them, but hopefully google has enough sense to be able to tell the difference between an email someone wanted to receive and unwanted harassment.

**Breotan**

Peregrine wrote:
1) It's entirely automated unless you have indisputably committed a crime. This isn't a person reading your email looking for anything "suspicious", or even a keyword system that sends every email with "bomb" to a human reader, it's an automated system that (as far as we know) only flags very specific files that are clearly illegal. So there isn't the same kind of problem with privacy violations that broader searches, like the NSA ones, have.

Why does the broadness of the search make one reasonable and the other not? I'd expect that even narrow searches would be a source of concern were they being done by the government.

**Peregrine**

Breotan wrote:
Why does the broadness of the search make one reasonable and the other not? I'd expect that even narrow searches would be a source of concern were they being done by the government.

It doesn't, if your question is "can the government legally do this". But since this is a private corporation that's not a very relevant question, and what you should be asking is "is it reasonable to be outraged about this". And that's where the broadness of the search is important. A very narrow search that only involves a human if there is indisputably illegal material to investigate is very different from a broad search where someone gets to read your email for no good reason. If you're outraged about google's "violation" of your privacy here then you should be outraged about your modem violating your privacy every time it downloads and reads your email before delivering it to your computer.

**Ouze**

I don't have a problem with this. It's a free service and I understand that it's a vehicle for google to make money off of targeted advertisements primarily, and an email service secondarily. I have no problem with automated scans thereof, in it's current implementation. If I don't agree to those terms, I am free to walk.

That being said, there are similar laws in telecom that prevent this kind of behavior there - For example, AT&T can't legally listen to customer phone calls other than for very specific purposes. It might be time for similar legislation covering electronic mail.

**gunslingerpro**

I'd be interested to see if the image found was indeed found duplicated in another instance, which is why it triggered Google looking into it closer.

Or, if there is just an algorithm that finds nudity and has the photos reviewed by humans for questionable content.

The nature in which the items are examined makes all the difference to me.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

This is all well and good, until the day Mission Creep sets in.

**Peregrine**

gunslingerpro wrote:
I'd be interested to see if the image found was indeed found duplicated in another instance, which is why it triggered Google looking into it closer.

Or, if there is just an algorithm that finds nudity and has the photos reviewed by humans for questionable content.

The nature in which the items are examined makes all the difference to me.

The article says it's a hash comparison, which means it is automatically comparing everything to known illegal images and only flagging matches. Flagging all nudity and letting a human reviewer look at everyone's private (legal) porn would be far over the line, but there's nothing that suggests this is happening.

**Da Boss**

Very interesting. I mean, good that they caught the paedophile. I'd like Google to publish the parameters of their program, but I get that they probably never will because it would make it easier for the people they're trying to catch to avoid being caught.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Peregrine wrote:

The only real issue here would be someone sending illegal material to a person they hate to get the police called on them, but hopefully google has enough sense to be able to tell the difference between an email someone wanted to receive and unwanted harassment.

My guess is that this would/could be the case... I mean, if they were to try and prosecute me over emails in my inbox or spam folder, then I think we could all be tried for embezzlement?? with the number of "good friends" that I have that also happen to be African princes around.

Again, this is only a guess and conjecture, but I'd probably say this guy had put something into another folder with a label something like "totally not kiddie porn" or something (in any event, it would take a deliberate act to move the files that Google flagged to a location that would/could suggest he was doing this on purpose)

**d-usa**

While it feels "big brotherish" I am okay with it as long as it's a private company doing it and it is not influenced or mandated by law enforcement and I'm sure we all agreed to it in paragraph 428 of the ToS or something like that.

To me it would be no different than putting something in storage with the understanding that the employees of the storage company get a key to your unit and can open the door to see if you are cooking meth in your unit and then calling the cops if they see the drugs there.

Now if the police is forcing this then I would have a problem.

**hotsauceman1**

Now see, Im sad. I thought this might be about the Google CEO going Kung Fu on molesters.

**Skinnereal**

People should know by now that the data they keep on servers like Google runs is not private. The hosts have access to the data, but are supposed to not look at it.
But, since Google is a data-mining specialist, they'll scan everything out there, if only to catch trends or changes in usage.
If people used their own personal mail and web servers to store their data, they're held accountable. But, if they upload the and store it all online, it suddenly becomes deniable if found?

So, I don't find this surprising, and not entirely Google's fault. They are being forced to scan for things like this. UK-based ISPs are (IIRC) under orders to do the same.

Either encrypt and keep it off the cloud, or expect a knock at the door.

**Deadshot**

Good on Google. Hope the bastard gets lynched in prison.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Deadshot wrote:
Good on Google. Hope the bastard gets lynched in prison.

So much for innocent until proven guilty. Let's hope you're NEVER called upon to serve on a jury.

**Deadshot**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
Good on Google. Hope the bastard gets lynched in prison.

So much for innocent until proven guilty. Let's hope you're NEVER called upon to serve on a jury.

If there's enough evidence to question him on it, guilty verdict or not, he has questions to answer. Why does he have images that need questioning? Those shouldn't be there. He's guilty until proven innocent.

**MrDwhitey**

Nope, innocent till proven guilty is how it's supposed to be.

**Deadshot**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Nope, innocent till proven guilty is how it's supposed to be.

Well its not. I have allegations against you that you have dirty pics of underage children, here are the pictures from your harddrive. Prove that I am wrong. That is the situation we are dealing with. That "idea" is simply there to stop people jumping on the bandwagon and crucifying a man for being on trial. In practise it doesn't work, due to media hysteria. Even if he walks people will be outraged that a pedophile wasn't locked away. Or claim he pulled something. I believe I remember one trial where a pedophile, declared guilty, didn't serve jailtime because the judge was worried the other inmates would tear him limb from limb. I can't remember details of it but it definately sounds familiar.

**MrDwhitey**

Prove they're from my harddrive first, and that I put them there, kthxbye.

**Deadshot**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Prove they're from my harddrive first, and that I put them there, kthxbye.

Email checked, they're from your harddrive. If you didn't put them there who did.
There is no reason to believe this guy didn't do it. Burn him. I hate all pedophiles and hope they get what's coming to them...a frag grenade in the rear. Good day sir.

**MrDwhitey**

Sometimes it's like people don't get pranked by having ridiculous images posted on their computers/social sites/emails when they forget to log out, or share a house with someone, or w/e. These avenues are checked before a guilty verdict is put down.

Edit: I actually have probably in my cache what would be considered "mild" child porn (a drawn image) that I was linked by some feth and I clicked it. Clearly I should be in jail.

We don't just have trials for show because, and "I know he's guilty your honour truly I do, so lets just hang him before we waste any time actually trying to do the whole Justice thing" is patently disgusting.

Now before you respond full of heat about my apologist ways, Yeah, guy is most likely (read, overwhelmingly most likely) guilty and that's how I think of it, but it's still innocent until proven, which is one of the reasons peoples names shouldn't be released in cases where irreparable damage is caused to their life is likely (see any rape case ever).

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Deadshot wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Nope, innocent till proven guilty is how it's supposed to be.

Well its not. I have allegations against you that you have dirty pics of underage children, here are the pictures from your harddrive. Prove that I am wrong. That is the situation we are dealing with.

A person is not guilty simply because someone else says so. ANY person accused of ANY crime is legally INNOCENT until satisfactory evidence has been presented to a Jury of his peers.

That "idea" is simply there to stop people jumping on the bandwagon and crucifying a man for being on trial.

No, its a legal safeguard, and a fundamental cornerstone civil liberty in liberal Western Democracies, that EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty. Allegations DO NOT EQUAL PROOF. Even evidence does not equal proof, until it has been examined and accepted by a Judge and Jury.

In practise it doesn't work, due to media hysteria.

So you want to just throw it away, because it "doesn't work"?

Media hysteria that compromises the right of defendants to fair trials are a result of lax media regulations. Its NOT a fault of the legal concept "Innocent until proven guilty" itself.

Even if he walks people will be outraged that a pedophile wasn't locked away. Or claim he pulled something.

You're prejudging guilt. Google *claims* that illegal material was contained within his emails (not his hard drive). But until their allegations and the evidence are presented to a Court that finds him Guilty (should they consider the evidence to be satisfactory), then he is legally innocent.

I believe I remember one trial where a pedophile, declared guilty, didn't serve jailtime because the judge was worried the other inmates would tear him limb from limb. I can't remember details of it but it definately sounds familiar.

**LordofHats**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Nope, innocent till proven guilty is how it's supposed to be.

While that's how it works on paper, in practice it's pretty obvious pedophiles enjoy just harsh social stigma that the paper gets torn up and tossed out the window. Even if the cops work it out in the end, that gak sticks with you.

Fortunately, false accusations of that nature are so rare as to be non-existent.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

DELETED.

Misinterpreted your comment.

**Peregrine**

Deadshot wrote:
Email checked, they're from your harddrive. If you didn't put them there who did.

That's not how it works. You don't just get to make an accusation and say "prove you didn't do it", the prosecution has to do the work of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they are his. The defense can refuse to say even a single word in court, and if the prosecution fails to meet that burden of proof he's walking away a free man.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Media hysteria that compromises the right of defendants to fair trials are a result of lax media regulations. Its NOT a fault of the legal concept "Innocent until proven guilty" itself.

I agree with this, however, at least in the US, there isn't much that can be done, as there are plenty of lobbyists, etc out there that would scream bloody murder at any such law or regulation as it would be in violation of the 1st Amendment. I know that there's an argument for THIS particular kind of regulation, as once something is in print, it can't be taken back, no matter how wrong the initial bit was.

In my home state of Oregon, local news released pictures and the name of a lady arrested in connection to the killing, and attempted killing of both of her children.... and Damn, you should see some of the comments on that article. On the one hand, it would seem that there's no way she'd ever get a "fair" trial within the state of Oregon, but on the other, I'm glad to know that the jury selection process is/should be rigorous enough that she should get her due process, without it being much closer to a witch hunt.