Google’s ‘Secret’ Update Scans All Your Photos
-
Great, it'll have to plow through ~30GB of 1080p recordings of darkness and my upstairs neighbors living it up in the AMs. And nothing else.
-
Yep, I've removed both of those the second they showed up on my phone uninvited. Even as a non-US citizen, with the current state of their government, I definitely don't want any corporate collecting data on myself.
-
If the app did what op is claiming then the EU would have a field day fining google.
-
Thnx for this, just uninstalled it, google are arseholes
-
They removed don’t be evil long time ago
See, this is why I like proof. If you go to Google's Code of Conduct today, or any other archived version, you can see yourself that it was never removed. Yet everyone believed the clickbait articles claiming so. What happened is they moved it from the header to the footer, clickbait media reported that as "removed" and everyone ran with it, even though anyone can easily see it's not true, and it takes 30 seconds to verify, not even 5 hours.
Years later you are still repeating something that was made up just because you heard it a lot.
Of course Google is absolutely evil and the phrase was always meaningless whether it's there or not, but we can't just make up facts just because it fits our world view.
-
if the cellular carriers were forced to verify that caller-ID (or SMS equivalent) was accurate SMS scams would disappear (or at least be weaker). Google shouldn't have to do the job of the carriers, and if they wanted to implement this anyway they should let the user choose what service they want to perform the task similar to how they let the user choose which "Android system WebView" should be used.
-
graphene folks have a real love for the word misinformation. That's not you under there
, Daniel, is it? -
Why do you need machine learning for detecting scams?
Is someone in 2025 trying to help you out of the goodness of their heart? No. Move on.
-
Yes, absolutely, and regularly, and without shame.
But not usually about technical stuff.
-
What's over engineered about it?
-
Because that's where I got the info from first? Grow up
-
There's another one mentioned in the comments
-
If you want to talk money then it is in businesses best interest that money from their users is being used on their products, not being scammed through the use of their products.
Secondly machine learning or algorithms can detect patterns in ways a human can't. In some circles I've read that the programmers themselves can't decipher in the code how the end result is spat out, just that the inputs will guide it. Besides the fact that scammers can circumvent any carefully laid down antispam, antiscam, anti-virus through traditional software, a learning algorithm will be magnitudes harder to bypass. Or easier. Depends on the algorithm
-
Carriers don't care. They are selling you data. They don't care how it's used. Google is selling you a phone. Apple held down the market for a long time for being the phone that has some of the best security. As an android user that makes me want to switch phones. Not carriers.
-
not only refused to restore the account, but still insisted he was a pedophile producing child pornography despite the cops and doctors and every other authority involved insisting he wasnt, and that the images were medically necessary, and refuse to even give/let him get a backup of all his family pictures, emails, etc.
-
So, kinda like a free malware software that just scans without doing anything to solve the problem
-
I don't know the point of the first paragraph...scams are bad? Yes? Does anyone not agree? (I guess scammers)
For the second we are talking in the wild abstract, so I feel comfortable pointing out that every automated system humanity has come up with so far has pulled in our own biases and since ai models are trained by us, this should be no different. Second, if the models are fallible, you cannot talk about success without talking false positives. I don't care if it blocks every scammer out there if it also blocks a message from my doctor. Until we have data on consensus between these new algorithms and desired outcomes, it's pointless to claim they are better at X.
-
And you’ll again inconvenience a human slightly as they look at a pixelated copy of a picture of a cat or some noise.
No cops are called, no accounts closed
-
That's what you don't use, which wasn't what they asked, right?
