5 ms·
>Problem is that this scanning is necessarily fuzzy and there is going to be a false positive rate to it. And the way that you'll find out that you've tripped a
by mthoms 5y ago
>Problem is that this scanning is necessarily fuzzy and there is going to be a false positive rate to it. And the way that you'll find out that you've tripped a false positive is that the SWAT team will knock your door down and kill your dog (at a minimum).
Not true. Hash matches are to be human reviewed. So no, people won't get "swatted" accidentally as you allege.
The other concerns people have been voicing are certainly valid though (IMHO).
- mikewarot 5y ago>Hash matches are to be human reviewed. Until it proves too expensive, then a different AI system will do it instead. I have zero faith that it'll be a fully competent, well trained, well rested, well paid person will actually be doing these reviews in the long run.
- mthoms 5y agoIf you actually think there is going to be a fully automated system dispatching police SWAT teams throughout the US without a manual (or judicial) review then.... I really don't know what to tell you.
- mikewarot 5y agoIt'll all be shadow-ban type stuff, your account will be turned off, without appeal, things of that nature.
- mthoms 5y agoThat's a different thread of comments. This one is about automated dispatching of SWAT teams.
- sithlord 5y agoGuess its hard to believe that their is a world outside of the United States. Already do whatever it takes to pin some BS on someone that opposes them and has them executed. This would be no different.
- mthoms 5y agoI don’t understand. If the government can just claim you had CP without proof, then they can just… do that? They don’t need Apples system. Especially since anything flagged by this system is manually reviewed by Apple. So, there would exist counter-evidence for the govt claim. Don’t misunderstand, I see how this system is ripe for abuse. I was just commenting on the specific claim that there will be automated SWAT call outs (presumably in the US).
- smorgusofborg 5y agoIt should be extremely easy for any group that has access to tools like NSO Group's to use the information on a device to convincingly add data to devices. What is generally missing is the question of why certain people's devices were selectively searched. Attacks by the west on journalists often rely on the excuse of border searches for example.
- himinlomax 5y ago> If the government can just claim you had CP without proof, then they can just… do that? The problem is that they can do whatever if you have CP. Emphasis on "have": you might not even know you have it, because all it takes for you to be guilty is for a forbidden bit of data to be on your disk or cloud account. How did it end there? Doesn't matter much. It's unlikely you'll be convicted if someone else maliciously puts CP on your drive, but it's extremely likely your whole neighborhood will know about it before it's settled. Think about that. > They don’t need Apples system. Apple's system makes it sure that whenever someone puts CP on someone else's account, it rings the police and starts the nightmare. Without it, there's a few extra steps that make the nightmare much less likely to happen in the first place.
- mthoms 5y agoThis is plausible and exactly why I oppose this system. The only argument I made was against the claim that fully automated police dispatches will occur because of this system (in the west). Making outrageous, tinfoil hat level claims does not help our collective argument against this system. It just makes us look like paranoid conspiracy theorists. Let’s make coherent arguments (like the one you made above) instead of fantasy ones.
- jandrese 5y agoYeah, it normally requires an anonymous phone call from a VoIP number.
- LMYahooTFY 5y agoIs this an allusion to an actual occurrence?
- macintux 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting
- himinlomax 5y agoA dodgy phone call from an unknown number abroad by a stupid teenager is enough to get a SWAT team to murder innocent civilians, what makes you think they'll be smarter when the "call" comes from a robot? I mean, seriously, you're assuming as beyond obvious something that's demonstrably wrong RIGHT NOW.
- mthoms 5y agoThose prank SWAT calls are (a) from a human and (b) based on the assumption of IMMEDIATE risk of death/injury. Furthermore, (c) the CP scanning implementation itself requires human review. So no, under the proposed implementation (and current judicial requirements in the west) robots dispatching armed police to kill pets or people without ANY human oversight because of a situation that is not time sensitive is mere fantasy. Don’t misunderstand, I am against this whole thing for the reasons many others have well articulated in this thread. But the claim that robots are dispatching armed police without any human interference RIGHT NOW is provably wrong. Show me one incident where this has happened already and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. And yes, the judicial rules and Apples implementation could change in the future. That’s certainly a risk but is not the case RIGHT NOW. I mean, seriously?
- hahajk 5y agoI have to imagine that you’ll be investigated and can let Apple rehash your photos and find the ones that tripped the system. If Apple rehashes all your photos and suddenly none of them are tripping, and they accuse you of deleting the bad ones (assuming you haven’t deleted anything) the problem isn’t the hash algo, it’s something else in the system. That said, I don’t like my phone being a snitch.
- adib 5y agoOr Mechanical Turked.
- thayne 5y agoEh, humans make mistakes, that may reduce the false positives but if this program runs long enough, I'm sure it will happen to someone when someone accidentally presses the wrong button.
- lamontcg 5y agoGoogle and Apple have burned all their trust for this kind of thing. They already do terrible with all the people who get banned off their platforms with no notice of what they did wrong and no recourse. These companies cannot be trusted with the power to arrest you. They don't care if they ruin innocent lives due to edge conditions.
- adrianmsmith 5y ago> Hash matches are to be human reviewed. This comment suggests this phrase might be cleverly worded, to make it seem like the images are human reviewed, while that actually not being the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28096059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28096059
- aj3 5y agoReviewing potential matches sounds like an awful job. Retention might be even lower than in those FB abuse centers.
- alisonkisk 5y agoThat's part of why possession is illegal. The material is toxic.