5 ms·

They're not screening for kids and bare skin specifically. It's just a first heuristic to narrow down the pool of photos that conceivably might be child porn to

They're not screening for kids and bare skin specifically. It's just a first heuristic to narrow down the pool of photos that conceivably might be child porn to something that human investigators can feasibly check. Per the article, 90% of the kids-and-bare-skin photos received are found to be totally innocuous once a human looks at them; no action is taken, and the photos and associated personal info are removed from police computers.

LilBytes 7y ago
Except I'm not comfortable with my families photographs being screened by a third party that I don't know or have met, and this occurring explicitly without my knowledge. So to stop child pornography an all-seeing third party vets my families photographs even when shared privately via WhatsApp or similar? That's fucked.
- aaomidi 7y ago
  Stop using Facebook. Like.....what do you expect? I'm not trying to blame you here but since you're on this website I assume you're more generally knowledgable about stuff happening. We've known about variations of this for so long.
  - mosselman 7y ago
    There is a difference between knowing that Facebook posts are screened and thinking that private, "end-to-end encrypted" messages are being screened (if true).
    - aaomidi 7y ago
      They've basically provided no proof it's end to end encrypted properly. Heck even Facebook has a private message system they claim it's e2ee.
    - nomel 7y ago
      My naive assumption is that there are no peer-to-peer, or hosted, apps in the stores that aren’t screened/intercepted by someone.
themacks 7y ago
> a human looks at them That's the problem most people have with this.
- partisan 7y ago
  I’m not sure how anyone could defend this part without cringing at the implications for privacy.
gpm 7y ago
> It's just a first heuristic to narrow down the pool of photos that conceivably might be child porn to something that human investigators can feasibly check. Yes, but it's an invasion of privacy to even have someone looking at pictures that weren't shared publicly. Basically what you've just said is that 90% of the time they are invading innocent peoples privacy. Child porn is really bad, the right to privacy is also really important, I'm not convinced they've made the right decision here.

LilBytes 7y ago

Except I'm not comfortable with my families photographs being screened by a third party that I don't know or have met, and this occurring explicitly without my knowledge. So to stop child pornography an all-seeing third party vets my families photographs even when shared privately via WhatsApp or similar? That's fucked.

aaomidi 7y ago
Stop using Facebook. Like.....what do you expect? I'm not trying to blame you here but since you're on this website I assume you're more generally knowledgable about stuff happening. We've known about variations of this for so long.
- mosselman 7y ago
  There is a difference between knowing that Facebook posts are screened and thinking that private, "end-to-end encrypted" messages are being screened (if true).
  - aaomidi 7y ago
    They've basically provided no proof it's end to end encrypted properly. Heck even Facebook has a private message system they claim it's e2ee.
  - nomel 7y ago
    My naive assumption is that there are no peer-to-peer, or hosted, apps in the stores that aren’t screened/intercepted by someone.

themacks 7y ago

> a human looks at them That's the problem most people have with this.

partisan 7y ago
I’m not sure how anyone could defend this part without cringing at the implications for privacy.

gpm 7y ago

> It's just a first heuristic to narrow down the pool of photos that conceivably might be child porn to something that human investigators can feasibly check. Yes, but it's an invasion of privacy to even have someone looking at pictures that weren't shared publicly. Basically what you've just said is that 90% of the time they are invading innocent peoples privacy. Child porn is really bad, the right to privacy is also really important, I'm not convinced they've made the right decision here.