4 ms·

Then where are the news reports or articles of these false positives that would have shown up within the past decade? That's how long these companies have been

Then where are the news reports or articles of these false positives that would have shown up within the past decade? That's how long these companies have been using PhotoDNA on the server side. And the version of PhotoDNA from ten years ago would probably have been inferior to the version in place now. Is there even a single verifiable report of such a false positive? I feel that with the amount of attention brought to this issue, if there was such a report then it probably would have been brought up by now. Beyond that, assume that a false positive occurs and the innocent person is taken to court. Why would they have to fear being convicted if they don't actually hold any incriminating evidence? At most, that would become evidence against using perceptual hashing in future court cases. The issue in that case is the violation of the innocent person's privacy, not that they have a risk of being falsely convicted. The courts would still need admissible evidence, and I don't believe that only having a perceptual hash and a set of legally photographed images clears that bar. However, it becomes a completely separate issue if the false positives are "coincidentally" used to persecute marginalized groups in other countries where the same set of laws don't apply. But Apple has stated that they have no intention of expanding the system's scope to follow those laws. There isn't any evidence yet that Apple will do such a thing, or that they've already done it in the past. We are free to disbelieve them, but that's what they've stated. We can only hope that they won't change their minds.

thebooktocome 5y ago
> Why would they have to fear being convicted if they don't actually hold any incriminating evidence? Because going to court is extremely expensive? Because retaining legal council is extremely expensive? Because your district attorney will likely inflate the charges to coerce you into taking a plea deal, despite your innocence? Because you don't want all of your private documents, including ones completely unrelated to the alleged crime, entered into the court records? Because a "jury of your peers" can be convinced to believe just about anything? Because even if you're acquitted, most people will still believe you're guilty, and treat you as such? There are a myriad of reasons one shouldn't let the police go on mass criminal fishing expeditions. A lot of innocent people take collateral damage as a direct result of the incentives involved in an adversarial justice system.
- Clubber 5y ago
  Because we know that the US justice system is horribly corrupt and inept and don't care if they get it right, as long as they get a win. Because a case like this, you'll be paying a lot of bail just for the privilege of defending yourself properly. (Might have to sell/mortgage your house, or your mother's house). Because you will probably make the news, and the false accusation will be on the internet forever. Because you will probably get the living shit beat out of you by the arresting police. Because you will probably get the living shit beat out of you by your fellow inmates. Because the incompetent people who charged you can't be sued due to qualified immunity, so no skin off their back. Because your family will have a lot of stress on it and this will affect your spouse, children, siblings and parents in a very negative way, probably for the rest of their lives. Because you've lost your job in the process. Because you'll probably never get a decent job again. Because you'll probably need a lot of psychological counseling assuming you survive this process.
markdown 5y ago
> Then where are the news reports or articles of these false positives that would have shown up within the past decade?... Is there even a single verifiable report of such a false positive? I feel that with the amount of attention brought to this issue, if there was such a report then it probably would have been brought up by now. Positives get reviewed by humans, at which point false positives are identified and discarded. We would not hear about them, and there would not be any reporting about them in the press. You might think that this is the system working as intended, but I do not and would never consent to Apple giving my photos to some random anon to look at.
- silverpepsi 5y ago
  >Positives get reviewed by humans, at which point false positives are identified and discarded. Let's not forget, this part only happens if you are lucky. You get the wrong photo reviewer and you catch your girlfriend with the wrong type of lighting that makes her look as if she could pass for 17 and you're going to have the police show up at your work and cuff you, demanding to know who this person of interest is. Adult males have been tried for possession of CSAM for having images of well-known absolutely above 18 adult video stars: https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom/ https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom...
  - nl 5y ago
    But this isn't from automatic scanning. This is from dumb police work - one could actually argue that the scanning approach would have saved the person from this problem.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  The privacy violation here is smaller than the one we all used to have to go through to get photos developed at all.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Exactly why people avoided taking naughty pictures with film. Digital, on the other hand, is private. And should remain so.
salawat 5y ago
Kinda funny how almost every leaker or hacker in the last decade always seems to end up with child pornography in some way, shape, or form once the authorities get to them. Besides which, law enforcement isn't picky about when they pick people up. >The issue in that case is the violation of the innocent person's privacy, not that they have a risk of being falsely convicted. The courts would still need admissible evidence, and I don't believe that only having a perceptual hash and a set of legally photographed images clears that bar. So... You admit that this type of scanning is an invasion of privacy, and would likely be a flagrant constitutional violation if done by the Government? So why is it okie-dokie for the private sector to do this type of systematic check and balance evasion? That's what gets to me.
akiselev 5y ago
> That's how long these companies have been using PhotoDNA on the server side. Then where are their published peer reviewed papers demonstrating their false positive rate? The burden of proof is on them and they don't have any verifiable public data at all.

thebooktocome 5y ago

> Why would they have to fear being convicted if they don't actually hold any incriminating evidence? Because going to court is extremely expensive? Because retaining legal council is extremely expensive? Because your district attorney will likely inflate the charges to coerce you into taking a plea deal, despite your innocence? Because you don't want all of your private documents, including ones completely unrelated to the alleged crime, entered into the court records? Because a "jury of your peers" can be convinced to believe just about anything? Because even if you're acquitted, most people will still believe you're guilty, and treat you as such? There are a myriad of reasons one shouldn't let the police go on mass criminal fishing expeditions. A lot of innocent people take collateral damage as a direct result of the incentives involved in an adversarial justice system.

Clubber 5y ago
Because we know that the US justice system is horribly corrupt and inept and don't care if they get it right, as long as they get a win. Because a case like this, you'll be paying a lot of bail just for the privilege of defending yourself properly. (Might have to sell/mortgage your house, or your mother's house). Because you will probably make the news, and the false accusation will be on the internet forever. Because you will probably get the living shit beat out of you by the arresting police. Because you will probably get the living shit beat out of you by your fellow inmates. Because the incompetent people who charged you can't be sued due to qualified immunity, so no skin off their back. Because your family will have a lot of stress on it and this will affect your spouse, children, siblings and parents in a very negative way, probably for the rest of their lives. Because you've lost your job in the process. Because you'll probably never get a decent job again. Because you'll probably need a lot of psychological counseling assuming you survive this process.

markdown 5y ago

> Then where are the news reports or articles of these false positives that would have shown up within the past decade?... Is there even a single verifiable report of such a false positive? I feel that with the amount of attention brought to this issue, if there was such a report then it probably would have been brought up by now. Positives get reviewed by humans, at which point false positives are identified and discarded. We would not hear about them, and there would not be any reporting about them in the press. You might think that this is the system working as intended, but I do not and would never consent to Apple giving my photos to some random anon to look at.

silverpepsi 5y ago
>Positives get reviewed by humans, at which point false positives are identified and discarded. Let's not forget, this part only happens if you are lucky. You get the wrong photo reviewer and you catch your girlfriend with the wrong type of lighting that makes her look as if she could pass for 17 and you're going to have the police show up at your work and cuff you, demanding to know who this person of interest is. Adult males have been tried for possession of CSAM for having images of well-known absolutely above 18 adult video stars: https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom/ https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom...
- nl 5y ago
  But this isn't from automatic scanning. This is from dumb police work - one could actually argue that the scanning approach would have saved the person from this problem.
emodendroket 5y ago
The privacy violation here is smaller than the one we all used to have to go through to get photos developed at all.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Exactly why people avoided taking naughty pictures with film. Digital, on the other hand, is private. And should remain so.

salawat 5y ago

Kinda funny how almost every leaker or hacker in the last decade always seems to end up with child pornography in some way, shape, or form once the authorities get to them. Besides which, law enforcement isn't picky about when they pick people up. >The issue in that case is the violation of the innocent person's privacy, not that they have a risk of being falsely convicted. The courts would still need admissible evidence, and I don't believe that only having a perceptual hash and a set of legally photographed images clears that bar. So... You admit that this type of scanning is an invasion of privacy, and would likely be a flagrant constitutional violation if done by the Government? So why is it okie-dokie for the private sector to do this type of systematic check and balance evasion? That's what gets to me.

akiselev 5y ago

> That's how long these companies have been using PhotoDNA on the server side. Then where are their published peer reviewed papers demonstrating their false positive rate? The burden of proof is on them and they don't have any verifiable public data at all.