14 ms·

Don't worry, AI is very good at these things and never makes mistakes. It is so advanced it even understands nuance and complex communication mechanisms like sa

by cronix 5y ago

Don't worry, AI is very good at these things and never makes mistakes. It is so advanced it even understands nuance and complex communication mechanisms like sarcasm in text, even if it's only a single sentence to contrast! It will be able to know exactly the context of each image and it will affect only the sickos. We're also working on watching your face through the camera to see your true expression when viewing them. Oh, but if a few innocent people do happen get caught up in it and lives ruined, it's totally justifiable because this type of activity is the absolute worst. And false positives are exceeeeedingly rare. We'll apologize and adjust our algorithms. Sue us? How dare you? We're really trying to wipe out sickos. Are you a sicko or something? You must be. Only sicko's would disagree with protecting children.

8458e112e7b2 5y ago
Yep. And if you dont like it, build your own iPhone.
- ghego1 5y ago
  And be immediately labelled by society as a CP holder
mm983 5y ago
This is painful to read with the arrogant undertone while you don't actually know how CSAM scanning works. It's fuzzy hash, not ""AI"", based. Cloudflare uses it too, and last time i checked the web is still functional. https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/360046106112-Understanding-the-CSAM-Scanning-Tool https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/36004610611... How about we turn the tables and have the complainers suggest a solution. Because every single time an approach to targeted child porn takedowns has been suggested, such as datacenter raids which would not affect as many people, someone is screaming about their privacy. Child abusers evolve and are very happy if law enforcement doesn't.
- babyshake 5y ago
  So this means it is checking if you are sharing known CP images? That does seem to be much less invasive and problematic as there is likely no good reason to be sharing these images.
  - mm983 5y ago
    Yes, that's exactly it. It uses a database compiled by NGOs and specialized firms comprising of file hashes matching child porn. These lists are handled by humans. Fuzzy means that it takes compression and the like into account, because even if just one pixel out of 20 thousand is different, the hash is different too. Fuzzy hash still recognizes it as the same image, so using an algorithm to alter the color etc. won't work.
    - ggreer 5y ago
      > These lists are handled by humans. That's also true for the no-fly list and the Terrorist Screening Database,[1] yet those are full of false positives. And unlike those lists, CSAM databases cannot be independently verified. To do so would require having the original images, which is illegal. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Screening_Database https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Screening_Database
      - sterlind 5y ago
        The no-fly list and the terrorist screening database aren't used in a court of law. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees you access to all the evidence presented against you. You also don't need the original images to defend yourself, though apparently CP can be presented to a (traumatized) jury [0]. So if you're charged on the basis of a fuzzy hash matching, you'd subpoena Apple for the photo in your backup that matched, present it to the court (since it doesn't actually matter if it's CP or not to be admissible), and you win the case. 0. https://www.johntfloyd.com/the-difficulty-with-criminal-evidence/ https://www.johntfloyd.com/the-difficulty-with-criminal-evid...
  - 5y ago
Retric 5y ago
There is zero AI classification involved, it’s a lookup vs hashes of known child porn images. You would need a hash collision, misidentified photo in the dataset, or legitimate use case to end up with a false positive.
- slg 5y ago
  And they aren't going to act on a single hash collision. People who have these images likely aren't going to have one or two. People can argue against this approach for privacy reasons, but I think the false positive argument is a relatively weak one.
  - headShrinker 5y ago
    There won’t be any collisions. It’s not a bit-for-bit Comparison. The algorithm uses machine learning to categorize images using perceptual match. There will be many false positives, they will be reviewed by people. When there’s more than a few false positives, you will be investigated by the FBI.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  Zero AI involved? Simple hashes? Source needed. From what I read, you are making false claims.
  - piyh 5y ago
    The concern is less false positives, and more if the Chinese government tells Apple "find everyone who has this picture on their phone in Hong Kong"
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - cududa 5y ago
    The PhotoDNA platform doesn’t offer the participating organization raw photos, just hashes. The AI part is stitching photos with matching edges together, incase someone cropped them into different parts. Again, Apple nor any company, have access to the source data, just hashes.
sigzero 5y ago
I think this is sarcasm given the last bit.
- BatFastard 5y ago
  Really?

by cronix 5y ago

8458e112e7b2 5y ago

Yep. And if you dont like it, build your own iPhone.

ghego1 5y ago
And be immediately labelled by society as a CP holder

mm983 5y ago

This is painful to read with the arrogant undertone while you don't actually know how CSAM scanning works. It's fuzzy hash, not ""AI"", based. Cloudflare uses it too, and last time i checked the web is still functional. https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/360046106112-Understanding-the-CSAM-Scanning-Tool https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/36004610611... How about we turn the tables and have the complainers suggest a solution. Because every single time an approach to targeted child porn takedowns has been suggested, such as datacenter raids which would not affect as many people, someone is screaming about their privacy. Child abusers evolve and are very happy if law enforcement doesn't.

babyshake 5y ago
So this means it is checking if you are sharing known CP images? That does seem to be much less invasive and problematic as there is likely no good reason to be sharing these images.
- mm983 5y ago
  Yes, that's exactly it. It uses a database compiled by NGOs and specialized firms comprising of file hashes matching child porn. These lists are handled by humans. Fuzzy means that it takes compression and the like into account, because even if just one pixel out of 20 thousand is different, the hash is different too. Fuzzy hash still recognizes it as the same image, so using an algorithm to alter the color etc. won't work.
  - ggreer 5y ago
    > These lists are handled by humans. That's also true for the no-fly list and the Terrorist Screening Database,[1] yet those are full of false positives. And unlike those lists, CSAM databases cannot be independently verified. To do so would require having the original images, which is illegal. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Screening_Database https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Screening_Database
    - sterlind 5y ago
      The no-fly list and the terrorist screening database aren't used in a court of law. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees you access to all the evidence presented against you. You also don't need the original images to defend yourself, though apparently CP can be presented to a (traumatized) jury [0]. So if you're charged on the basis of a fuzzy hash matching, you'd subpoena Apple for the photo in your backup that matched, present it to the court (since it doesn't actually matter if it's CP or not to be admissible), and you win the case. 0. https://www.johntfloyd.com/the-difficulty-with-criminal-evidence/ https://www.johntfloyd.com/the-difficulty-with-criminal-evid...
- 5y ago

Retric 5y ago

There is zero AI classification involved, it’s a lookup vs hashes of known child porn images. You would need a hash collision, misidentified photo in the dataset, or legitimate use case to end up with a false positive.

slg 5y ago
And they aren't going to act on a single hash collision. People who have these images likely aren't going to have one or two. People can argue against this approach for privacy reasons, but I think the false positive argument is a relatively weak one.
- headShrinker 5y ago
  There won’t be any collisions. It’s not a bit-for-bit Comparison. The algorithm uses machine learning to categorize images using perceptual match. There will be many false positives, they will be reviewed by people. When there’s more than a few false positives, you will be investigated by the FBI.
jtbayly 5y ago
Zero AI involved? Simple hashes? Source needed. From what I read, you are making false claims.
- piyh 5y ago
  The concern is less false positives, and more if the Chinese government tells Apple "find everyone who has this picture on their phone in Hong Kong"
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- cududa 5y ago
  The PhotoDNA platform doesn’t offer the participating organization raw photos, just hashes. The AI part is stitching photos with matching edges together, incase someone cropped them into different parts. Again, Apple nor any company, have access to the source data, just hashes.

sigzero 5y ago

I think this is sarcasm given the last bit.

BatFastard 5y ago
Really?