5 ms·

This on-device scanning is even worse. They cant even tell what was violating, or what hash, or what image. Just that the computer said you are violating. We h

This on-device scanning is even worse. They cant even tell what was violating, or what hash, or what image. Just that the computer said you are violating. We have no idea about the hash collisions. When talking about whole world, 2^256 isn't a big enough space.... even if they're using 256 bits. And how dare anybody criticize this - criticism is tantamount to being for child porn. (Then again, that's why it was chosen. We'll soon see other things 'forbidden'.)

defaultname 5y ago
There is a shared (among all of the major tech companies and presumably law enforcement) hash database of child abuse material. Going from a photo to the hash is deterministic: How it gets to a hash on your phone is surely the same way it gets to a hash running the exact same algorithm on the cloud, whether iCloud, Amazon Photos, etc. Such a collision would generate a human validation. This applies to cloud-shared files. It actually has applied to cloud shared photos for years. It applies to literally every major cloud photo service.
- noasaservice 5y ago
  1. how many false positives have there been? 2. is it really reviewed by a human? I see how YT works, and automated failure at scale is the name of the game 3. apple has said that the on-device scanning only provides a binary yes/no on CP detection. How do you defend against a "yes" accusation? (when stored on someone else's server, the evidence is there)
  - dwaite 5y ago
    This is part of iCloud photo sync, and on hitting some threshold of matching pictures it would trigger human review. There would also presumably be human review involved in the legal process, e.g. law enforcement getting a subpoena based on Apple notifying them, and then using gathered evidence for a warrant. The system is based on known image hashes, not arbitrary ML detection. As this system is used only for iCloud photo uploads, the evidence gathering should be similar to that done by LE with other cloud hosting providers for years
mrtranscendence 5y ago
2*256 is a huge space. If everyone in the whole world had 50,000 images stored in iCloud, the probability of a collision would still be infinitesimally, unimaginably small.
- mousepilot 5y ago
  2*256 is 512. you should probably type 2^256. lol picky I know

defaultname 5y ago

There is a shared (among all of the major tech companies and presumably law enforcement) hash database of child abuse material. Going from a photo to the hash is deterministic: How it gets to a hash on your phone is surely the same way it gets to a hash running the exact same algorithm on the cloud, whether iCloud, Amazon Photos, etc. Such a collision would generate a human validation. This applies to cloud-shared files. It actually has applied to cloud shared photos for years. It applies to literally every major cloud photo service.

noasaservice 5y ago
1. how many false positives have there been? 2. is it really reviewed by a human? I see how YT works, and automated failure at scale is the name of the game 3. apple has said that the on-device scanning only provides a binary yes/no on CP detection. How do you defend against a "yes" accusation? (when stored on someone else's server, the evidence is there)
- dwaite 5y ago
  This is part of iCloud photo sync, and on hitting some threshold of matching pictures it would trigger human review. There would also presumably be human review involved in the legal process, e.g. law enforcement getting a subpoena based on Apple notifying them, and then using gathered evidence for a warrant. The system is based on known image hashes, not arbitrary ML detection. As this system is used only for iCloud photo uploads, the evidence gathering should be similar to that done by LE with other cloud hosting providers for years

mrtranscendence 5y ago

2*256 is a huge space. If everyone in the whole world had 50,000 images stored in iCloud, the probability of a collision would still be infinitesimally, unimaginably small.

mousepilot 5y ago
2*256 is 512. you should probably type 2^256. lol picky I know