Alright, so we all probably heard about the case of some pedo being arrested because gmail automatically scans every image you send and receive via mail. Now what I'm interested in is if Chrome actually does the same.
Does google have a history of hashes of every single image that I ever viewed in chrome? Cause that'd be seriously fucked up
You got a Link to an article about this?
>>53528223
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2461400/how-google-handles-child-pornography-in-gmail-search.html
>>53528186
OP's life
>Looks for porn on /b/
>Clicks loli thread
>Shit I wanted to hit the clopping thread
>A bunch of CP appears on the screen
>Chrome sends all of those photos to google
>Popup notification saying ur fukt
>Knock at my door
>Open it
>Chloroform.jpg
>passes out
>sent to Guantanamo
>Tortured to death
>Thanks Chrome
>>53528252
>>Chrome sends all of those photos to google
And this is what I'm interested in. I mean I know about the botnet meme, but chrome actually sending hashes of every single Image you view to google would be an entirely new level of big brother
>>53528279
>Chrome actually sending hashes of every single image you view to google would be an entirely new level of big brother
Hence the botnet meme
>>53528186
It doesn't quantify a charge even if it does, but it might put you on an actually important watch list if you do.
If you're asking if it does, we have no way of knowing. Although it probably doesn't, yet.
This isn't really about CP though, that one case was just what got me thinking
It's more along the lines of how much Chrome shares in general. I mean I don't care about gmail. You have to manually sign up for that. But chrome is pre-installed on millions of devices and comes packaged with every other download.
A lot of people probably don't even realize that they're using chrome, they didn't have to sign up for anything, it was just there. How much data does it actually share? If it shares as much as google's sign-up services how's that even legal?
Reading through chromes privacy policy it actually seems rather harmless
>>53528601
Mainstream browsers like Firefox and Chrome come with anti-phishing and anti-malware features enabled by default, those require checking every link and every download against a some blacklist.
>>53528901
With safebrowsing you're actually downloading a blacklist though, it isn't actually validating URLs on some google server, it's all done locally
>>53528966
I think it's true for Firefox since some version but I don't know about Chrome. Checking against local blacklist sounds saner though.
Anyway, I think OP should be more worried about his ISP snooping on him. It's fairly easy for a middle man to collect info like who types in "loli" in search field on exhentai and store it forever since it's just plain text metadata.
>>53528186
Whoopsies. Time for you idiots to install Firefox again.
Also Windows 8.0 confirmed for last usable MS OS. Anything beyond that will send your naughty pics to the FBI.
>>53529078
>Also Windows 8.0 confirmed for last usable MS OS
Confirmed by who? Microsoft?
>>53529078
implying we actually used chrome
>>53529286
>implying we use chrome
ftfy
