Not necessarily true. If an image of a report is posted, I'm not convinced it can be edited and re-uploaded: not w/o leaving a record of alteration, and I believe there are ways of making those documents indelible and 'read only'. but I'm not an expert, however.

I misspoke a bit.  yes, there will be a trail of the changes.  Somewhere.  But police do not look for changes to evidence when they are arresting you (or ever in some cases).  The headlines will be written, the fingers pointed, and when the truth does come out?  No one will notice.

But as for "images".  I doubt they will be posted.  Forms are on line.  Pictures (unless CAT or X-Ray) are not useful to a doctor searching for your medical history.  So it will be pure data.  And yes, we will still be able to determine if a change was made - but long after the damage is done.

Possibly not...if just for indexing/tagging. I was thining more along the lines of optical imaging of summaries rather than typing as we see here, for example.

While Google is selective in what it publishes online, to say, suit its agenda, it may also be selective in what it deems fit to notify the authorities of.... again to suits its agenda/goals.  For example, if Google eavesdropped on a plot to assassinate a senator who is blocking legislation essential to further enable its goals, would Google (a) report it to the authorities immediately ( wait a while and ring in when it's too late, or (c) forget all about it/pretend nothing ever happened?

My bet's on one of the latter two, and the first thing the authorities know about it is after the shots are fired.  Same with a terrorist plot!  Google would analyse the potential outcome and weigh up if it benefits them or not.  If not, it might make the call, but if the plot/attack gave Google an advantage, I wouldn't wanna be holding my breath for it not to do evil.

Anyway, that's all beside the point!  Google has NO business eavesdropping to begin with... NOT on unsecured wi-fi connections, telephone connections, supposedly secure sites it has no business being on.  I don't know about telephone tapping, but we all know Google tunes into wi-fi connections while doing its rounds collecting map data.... and my former brother-in-law is one of many who are patently aware that Google went on to a member only dating site and published details about them that were not intended for public consumption/scrutiny.

Bottom line, Google invades peoples privacy and does shit even the CIA and FBI need to obtain warrants for... and don't think for a millisecond that isn't true.  Both the FBI and CIA would have had to acquire a court order to inspect the data contained on that dating site, and then they would only have been able to view the files of named suspects, not everyone's records.  Google, on the other hand, acquired no legal authority whatsoever to enter that site, or peruse the files of ALL its members.

The thing is, kona, I have absolutely no doubt that Google trawls Wincustomize and that it is fully aware of everything I say against it, and so what, I don't care.  At present they probably think I'm some kind of lunatic with an obsessive compulsive disorder who has a cyber-stalking infatuation with Google, so right now I'm not too worried... but that could well change if I gain hundreds of disciples who shout it out on every street corner, from rooftops and in shopping malls.  If that happens I'll have a couple of mates do a witness protection type thing and I'll disappear on my own terms.

Anyhow, kona, if you want to go on trusting and believing in Google, be my guest.... go ahead, bare your soul and have faith it won't be used at some stage to your abject horror.

Oh yeah, and how's them browsers doin'?

As my dear ol' grandmother used to say: "If somebody throws a bucket of shit over you, a lot of it will fall off, but some of it is going to stick."  So even if a trail of changes is detected - and that's a big if when you can't afford proper legal representation anfd the prosecutor want to crucify you - there are some who will always believe you guilty.  However, some forgers are so good at their craft that even forensic experts have difficulty in determining what is legit and what is bogus in some documents. 

I can't remember all the details now, but I recall seeing a program where a woman claiming to be a missing heiress fooled everyone [including lawyers, police and forensics people] with various and quite authentic looking documents and papers.  She somehow even procured old family photos in a bid to prove her identity.  The family took her in and fully embraced her as their own.  It was only when she had a minor illness and blood tests revealed anomalies that she was found to be an imposter. Yeah, she and her boyfriend went to elaborate lengths to defraud the family out of millions, and may well have gotten away with it [being the real heiress was murdered and couldn't claim her place] had it not been for a simple blood test. 

The irony there is that private citizens (and corporations) can do a lot of shit that is illegal for the government to do.  That does not make it right, just not illegal. (Like I can tape our phone call - they cannot).

I 'ere tell dat der orffices are accessible wit a 20 pounder from the sea cap'n.

I can remember that one as she lived right here in Virginia.  She was a harmless person, just insisting she was the last Romanov and had been smuggled out of Russia during the revolution by her nurse.  A lot of people here believe she was too.

Oops, not the same one.  Yours was not harmless.

And if Ben Franklin was alive today and said the same thing, people would point to the twin towers and laugh in his face.

Some people would.  Other people agree with him.

How about the murder of evil dictators?

I'm not saying the man didn't have a point, just that most of us would rather not have billions in public investments wiped out because some asshats did something that was completely preventable.  (Or the people there, of course.)

That's just plain crazy, and that's putting it mildly.  I haven't read up on Australia's privacy laws in recent times, but I'm almost sure that private individuals and corporations are liable to penalties for such invasions of privacy.  For example, while a company can place surveillance cameras in public areas of their premises, they cannot put them in areas where personal privacy can be compromised... eg,  private conference/consultation rooms.  So it's not just bathrooms and change rooms, and breaches of these laws incur quite heavy penalties.

I'm pretty sure that the covert use of digital mobile phone cameras - ie, capture without consent/filming up skirt - carries significant penalties as well, if/when caught.  For example a man in Melbourne recently was sentence to 4 1/2 years for filming up womens skirts from the bottom of an elevator.  Sheesh, I've seen cases of rape and kiddy fiddling get less than that.... the penalties there are certainly disproportionate.

No, they were quite ruthless, according to the story on TV. As I recall it was one of those US crime-type documentary programmes that spend an hour highlighting a crime and how it was foiled/detected, but yeah, it was in the US, possibly about 5 - 6 years ago, if memory serves correct.

kona, NO murder is excusable... murder meaning the 'intent' to kill for personal gain, pleasure, etc.  However, if an evil dictator is deposed, tried in a court of the land, found guilty and executed under the laws of that land, then that is not murder and is considered more acceptable by society

So ... hows them browsers doin'?

I think we are slowly reaching a consensus that if Benjamin Franklin would be alive today, he would think most of us are idiots. And he'd use firefox.

Here Here!!