Have an Outlook account?

Why does no one really care about Microsoft snooping on all your mails? To my knowledge it is the first email provider who has admitted doing this.

thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/11/microsoft-anti-porn-workers-sue-over-ptsd.html

Other urls found in this thread:

businessinsider.com/google-doesnt-watch-gmail-for-all-crime-2014-8?IR=T
blog.google/topics/public-policy/sharing-national-security-letters-public/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

To clarify, they comb through each of your emails to check for crimes and report them to police. Does really nobody see the scandal in this?

>To my knowledge it is the first email provider who has admitted doing this
Are you having a laugh mate everyone does it and no one dodges around questions about it any more. If you have a free email account or use a free service of any kind then all of your information unless explicitly said otherwise, is the property of the service provider and they can do with it as they please.

Gmail, Discord, Facebook, Microsoft online, Yahoo the whole fucking lot of them do it

Yet no one of those is actively scanning for crimes to report them to the cops. At least to my knowledge.

Google scans ONLY for child porn, nothing else: businessinsider.com/google-doesnt-watch-gmail-for-all-crime-2014-8?IR=T

It is important to remember that we only use this technology to identify child sexual abuse imagery, not other email content that could be associated with criminal activity (for example using email to plot a burglary).
___

That means Google does it with servers. Microsoft does it with humans and looks for all kinds of criminal activity it seems.

No one cares because you're retarded.

We know it's related to their photoDNA system, which is known to be used pretty much in every microsoft service out there, and which is expanding to third parties. Once the system finds an image that matches what's on their records for CP, they have humans (these techs) confirm that it is indeed CP. The idea that a bunch of techs would be searching every single email, skype account and onedrive files out there by hand is fucking stupid.

Google does.

WTF I WANT TO WORK FOR MICROSOFT NOW!!!?

Read the FUCKING ARTICLE. It's humans scanning your mails and they are suing Microsoft.

Also read Google only scans for child porn in an automated way while Microsoft employees manually scans for anything.

Who knows, maybe they are looking for hackers or political dissidents as well? Or business secrets...

Suddenly Office365 doesn't look that great anymore.

MS does it automated, then relays it to humans for confirmation

Source?

>They “could literally view any customer’s communications at any time.” Specifically, they were asked to screen Microsoft users’ communications for child pornography and evidence of other crimes.

I did.

>“Microsoft applies industry-leading, cutting-edge technology to help detect and classify illegal images of child abuse and exploitation that are shared by users on Microsoft Services,”
This is photoDNA.
>“Once verified by a specially trained employee, the company removes the image, reports it to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, and bans the users who shared the images from our services. We have put in place robust wellness programs to ensure the employees who handle this material have the resources and support they need.”
Once photoDNA has a match, a human confirms it. The human is then probably given further access to recollect more material.

The bit that does seem concerning is
>They “could literally view any customer’s communications at any time.” Specifically, they were asked to screen Microsoft users’ communications for child pornography and evidence of other crimes.
But it makes no sense to manually check every single user account by hand when they already have a system in place to do this automatically.

WTF I love outlook accounts now

Do people still send child porn as plain images? I guess pedophiles aren't the brightest of people.

>Google scans ONLY for child porn, nothing else
Not true. They scan your entire email so they can serve you ads based on the content of it.

This.

No source needed, just use Common Sense 2017. It's too much work going through all emails sent daily.

Yet they are able to immediately check on any account. Say the NSA/FBI/CIA/Trump/Obama asks them to check on this specific person. I'm sure they'll do it in a heartbeat.

Not to mention all the privacy related issues. Or business secrets indeed, as a jr admin I'll strongly recommend not using Office 365 after this (update planned for next year).

While Google requires a national security letter: blog.google/topics/public-policy/sharing-national-security-letters-public/

Let me reword that:

The only crime Google scans emails for is child porn.

ANY Microsoft crime reporter employee has the ability to check ANY user's inbox.

Do you really see no problem with this?

They're probably under NDA as those business agreements, secrets and provisions are either confidential or patented or trademarked

>Yet they are able to immediately check on any account. Say the NSA/FBI/CIA/Trump/Obama asks them to check on this specific person. I'm sure they'll do it in a heartbeat.
It's one thing to be able to check an account internally, and another to divulge information to third parties. I'm not saying they won't do it, but if they did, they'd be opening themselves to a giant lawsuit for it. They would still require the proper legal paperwork to release any info.

>Not to mention all the privacy related issues.
Releasing private information would be a crime.

>Or business secrets
Releasing private business data would be a big fucking crime.

Having power doesn't automatically mean they WILL abuse it. Yes, it's still a concern, but some people here are making it seem like the end of the world.

ptsd is a myth, you fucking retards.

I don't think thats the case. I once tricked a friend into installing a RAT on his computer and I made a throwaway gmail that the RAT would send screenshots to and Google shut down the account, didn't get arrested or anything but still.

Some of the stupid ITT is just confounding.

Did some of you forget to take your meds today?

>It's one thing to be able to check an account internally, and another to divulge information to third parties.

It's not. Being able to do it means their system is insecure and privacy-free by design.

>Releasing private information would be a crime.
It's not. They're not a medical company or something, there is NO legal obligation not to, say, sell information to ad companies. And obviously it's not a crime if the government orders you to do it...

>there is NO legal obligation not to
except for things like patent law you know real trade secrets that ARE protected under law.

>there is NO legal obligation not to,
Just stop talking, because you clearly have zero idea what you're talking about.

>Why does no one really care about Microsoft snooping on all your mails?

It is not news, everyone knows this.

>To my knowledge it is the first email provider who has admitted doing this.

Everyone who installs windows or get an outlook account agrees to this. It says it right there in the terms and conditions.

>To clarify, they comb through each of your emails to check for crimes and report them to police. Does really nobody see the scandal in this?

It only happens to people who agree to it.

>Say the NSA/FBI/CIA/Trump/Obama asks them to check on this specific person. I'm sure they'll do it in a heartbeat.

Of course, we know from the Snowden leaks that Microsoft (and Apple +++) already did this even when the government did not have a warrant.

>except for things like patent law you know real trade secrets that ARE protected under law.
It says in the terms and conditions that ALL information entered into Microsoft's services (including Windows 10) is available for microsoft to share.

It is not Microsofts responsability if the information is not shareable, it says in the terms and condition that the user is responsible to ensure that Microsoft is able to share any information that the user enters into one of their services. The user has agreed to share EVERYTHING that is entered into any Microsoft services. Microsofts acts in good faith if they decide to share anything at all. The responsability lies on the user per the terms and conditions.

>It says in the terms and conditions that ALL information entered into Microsoft's services (including Windows 10) is available for microsoft to share.
You can't agree to something that would violate another law you stupid fuck.

If a lawyer has client-attorney privilege with his client over an email, you CANT fucking share that.

>It says in the terms and conditions that ALL information entered into Microsoft's services (including Windows 10) is available for microsoft to share.
[Citation needed]

>You can't agree to something that would violate another law you stupid fuck.
Well, it is the users responsability. If you put cocain in a locker at a train station then the company that owns the locker are not going to be blamed for it.

If you do something criminal by sharing trade secrets with microsoft and explicitly telling them that they can share it with anyone they want. (which is what you do if you enter trade secrets into a microsoft service) then how can Microsoft be blamed? It is YOU who did the crime and spread the information.

>If a lawyer has client-attorney privilege with his client over an email, you CANT fucking share that.

By using microsoft services the lawyer is explicitly telling microsoft: This is available to you as a company, feel free to share. Because that is the agreement that the lawyer (and anyone) has with microsoft. How is Microsoft to blame if a Lawyer says "please take this and share it if you want", how can microsoft be blamed? it is the LAWYER who is in the wrong when he shares information like that.

>Well, it is the users responsability. If you put cocain in a locker at a train station then the company that owns the locker are not going to be blamed for it.
Thats not the same thing by a long shot. You're starting with an illegal substance you stupid shit. Nice reach.

>If you do something criminal by sharing trade secrets with microsoft and explicitly telling them that they can share it with anyone they want.
This is retarded, just because someone breaks the law then tells you that you can also break the law on their behest doesn't mean microsoft can break the law. Thats fucking retarded

>how is microsoft responsible

If you share a confidential document with other people who are cleared for that confidential document over email, microsoft purposely sharing that information would get them purged, if a doctor emailed a form to their patient or a patient emailed a form to their doctor and microsoft violated HIPPA by sharing that document microsoft would get purged for it.

>By using microsoft services the lawyer is explicitly telling microsoft: This is available to you as a company, feel free to share.

NO ITS NOT, just because the lawyer hit "I accept" on the eula does NOT mean the lawyer gives them permission to share it because that is client-attorney special privilege. An attorney cannot break client attorney privilege regardless of what the attorney says.

>the lawyer says "please take and share this"
if microsoft takes it and shares it, thats breaking client attorney privilege. You cannot knowingly break client attorney privilege at all ever even if someone magically tells you its OK.

The same way that if Microsoft had a rule saying "you must give us your labor in exchange for this email service without compensation or wage" is also illegal. Christ there was a fucking southpark episode about this exact thing. You cannot sign away your rights, you cannot sign a contract or be held responsible for a contract that breaks a law.

>how can microsoft be held accountable if they knowingly break patent law?

How about the fact that if they intentionally share information protected by law thats illegal?

You're fucking stupid, your entire argument is based on scupulous and retarded EULA shit that doesn't even work nor has any legal bearing at all

>This is retarded, just because someone breaks the law then tells you that you can also break the law on their behest doesn't mean microsoft can break the law. Thats fucking retarded

Microsoft can only act under what they have been told.

>NO ITS NOT, just because the lawyer hit "I accept" on the eula does NOT mean the lawyer gives them permission to share it because that is client-attorney special privilege. An attorney cannot break client attorney privilege regardless of what the attorney says.

The attorney does, and if he tells someone "you are free to share this" then they are free to share it. It is only the lawyer that is bound by that.

>if microsoft takes it and shares it, thats breaking client attorney privilege. You cannot knowingly break client attorney privilege at all ever even if someone magically tells you its OK.

How can you say they knowingly do this, one would assume that any lawyer would avoid telling people information like that and telling them that they are free to share it in the first place.

Nobody is breaking patent law if the patent holders tell people they are free to share it. And if the one sharing it with microsoft is not a patent holder then that person is in the wrong by sharing it with microsoft and telling them they are free to share it.

EULAs are contracts

>Microsoft can only act under what they have been told.
You can't get told "please break the law" and think its ok to break the law.

>The attorney does, and if he tells someone "you are free to share this" then they are free to share it. It is only the lawyer that is bound by that.
No EULA is above the law, you can't sign a contract that breaks a law stupid ass.

>they do this knowingly
they know it because they see it. its that simple.

>no one is breaking patent law
Microsoft is if they knowingly share secrets that are protected under law. Its that simple, No eula matters when it comes to this.

>EULAs are contracts
and contracts can't violate the law, Theres so many fucking precedents set where EULAs don't fucking matter in court, both in the US, EU, and AU. Hell Valve had a contract via EULA that says the customer isn't entitled to a refund, well that doesn't count in the EU because EU law says customers must have a refund for electronic/software goods.

You're a retarded shill that things you can just ignore the law if some rando says you can

>Hey you can totally murder that guy
>but murder is illegal
>no its ok I said you can do it, that makes it not illegal anymore

>Nobody is breaking patent law if the patent holders tell people they are free to share it.
No its still illegal to break the law just because someone said its ok to share it. Them saying OK doesn't make it OK

>You can't get told "please break the law" and think its ok to break the law.
Exactly... Which is why I never implied that you could

>No EULA is above the law, you can't sign a contract that breaks a law stupid ass.

The EULA is according to the law. Microsoft can not be blamed for users misusing Microsoft's trust and tricking Microsoft by telling them that they are free to share information. If someone tells you some government secret and tells you to feel free to share it with people, how can you know it's a government secret? How can YOU be blamed for that?

>Microsoft is if they knowingly share secrets that are protected under law. Its that simple, No eula matters when it comes to this.

Patent owners are free to share that information as much as they want. And anyone who hears it and share it on is not liable for anything. Microsoft can't be blamed for that.

>Hell Valve had a contract via EULA that says the customer isn't entitled to a refund, well that doesn't count in the EU because EU law says customers must have a refund for electronic/software goods.

There is no law that says that you are not allowed to share information that a party tells you about and then tell you that you are free to share the information. If they tell you in confidence then at least that is rude to tell people, but nobody does it in confidence to Microsoft.

it's not breaking the law. Anyone who owns a patent is free to let anybody use the patent without pay and release all information. it has happened.

>it's not breaking the law. Anyone who owns a patent is free to let anybody use the patent without pay and release all information. it has happened.
[citation needed]

The patent holder can't just tell you "please violate the patent law by sharing this trade secret" He can't just tell you to break the law its that simple

You are fucking retarded this is bait you dumb arm-chair lawyer think that "its ok because I got told I could do it" EULAs don't fucking hold up in court

>please murder me
>no its illegal
>its not illegal because I said you could
>*kills him*
>you're under arrest for the murder
>he told me I could!
>just because he told you you could doesn't mean its not murder and its not illegal

>There is no law that says that you are not allowed to share information that a party tells you about and then tell you that you are free to share the information.
client-attorney privilege is exactly that law. An attorney can't break it just because an attorney says you can break it.

>[citation needed]

Tesla cars did this.

>The patent holder can't just tell you "please violate the patent law by sharing this trade secret" He can't just tell you to break the law its that simple

A patent holder is free to release any information about the patent that he wants and if he tells people that they are free to share it then they are free to share it. Has happened many times before.

>please murder me
>no its illegal
>its not illegal because I said you could

Shitty anology, you should have used:

>Feel free to share this information about my patent
>But it's your patent
>But you are free to share it.

Microsoft can't break attorney-client privilege. It's the Attorney that breaks it when he tells Microsoft that they are free to share the information.

Microsoft are not legally obliged to keep it a secret.