http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

Assange fled Sweden rather than defend himself against the charges.

http://www.facebook.com/uppermichiganssource

Assange is charged with rape and his best friend wrote a tell-all book that is pretty damning. He was also ripped by Amnesty International for endangering innocent volunteers. People close to him said he was motivated purely by money.

Yep, Assange we can recognize as a man of high ideals just because he criticized people we don't like.

Why is it that no one is praising groups like Amnesty International who also expose government corruption? They literally champion for human rights, get involved, operate as a non-profit, and enact positive change in the world without breaking laws?

PlutoIsTotallyAPlanet
NoReallyItIsAPlanet

You do get to control how it behaves, by choosing the correct file format.

If you are ignorant of how the feature works and choose the wrong file format, that doesn't mean MS is to blame.

Google has fired at least two people for breaking this policy. So obviously they care about it and enforce it.

First off, they aren't reading email. They are parsing it.

Email is always parsed for spam, so in that context then email would still be parsed through a spam filter even on paid accounts. But paid accounts are not re-parsed for contextual ads.

As a company policy, they weren't. Anyone who did was fired. Microsoft is claiming that it is Google's official policy to have employees read your email.

I would hope you can understand the distinction.

The proof that Google is actively reading your email? Because that's a lie.

The truth that Microsoft doesn't do the same thing? Because that's also a lie. Outlook.com also scans email to serve up contextual ads.

Prying into? Do you mean seeing what web pages you were hitting and such? That's nothing short of bullshit.

They drove around and saw how many wireless networks there were and wrote down ESSIDs, the publicly broadcasted name of the network.

So they collected publicly broadcasted data at the same time they were rumored to be considering launching a wireless internet service to see how feasible it was.

They were asked if someone had an unsecured wireless network, and if they were typing passwords on an unsecured website at the same time that someone was network sniffing, would it be possible for someone to see that data and Google said yes. People didn't understand what that meant and misinterpreted it (or intentionally twisted it) to portray snooping, when responsible journalists should be educating people.

Secure your wifi, and never input sensitive data into a website that isn't using SSL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWbq5GHXPhA

Bob Saget raped and killed a girl in 1990.

Yes, I believe it.

You know why? Because they can use internal emails or just test data to tune their algorithms. Promising not to actual read your emails and then lying about it would literally threaten their entire business model. Why take such a risk that could destroy your company? That would be monumentally stupid.

I don't think Google is that stupid.

Outlook.com has contextual ads just like Gmail, so Microsoft is being a hypocrite and a liar here.

However, paid services from both Microsoft and Google will allow you to have ad-free email that won't be scanned.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/enterprise/apps/business/

You can pay for paid Google services that don't include ads.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/enterprise/apps/business/

No.

Google employees weren't reading the email. The US government now has a stupid law that when a law enforcement agency requests email, companies are required to hand it over without a warrant. That didn't mean anyone from Google was reading it ahead of time.

Someone should contest this (along with warantless wiretapping, GPS tracking, etc) to the Supreme Court because this behavior should be unconstitutional. Blame the executive branch for massively overstepping their authority.