3 ms·

> I'm not really concerned with what you're afraid most people will think. What matters is not what I think, but whether you care about making misleading comme

by zepto 5y ago

> I'm not really concerned with what you're afraid most people will think. What matters is not what I think, but whether you care about making misleading comments. > > If you are going to imply false positives are common, then you need to back it up. > I just did with two links I posted above. Twice. No, you posted some links that are not about Apple’s system, and you can’t explain how they apply presumably because you don’t understand what Apple is doing. > Sounds like a claim that wasn't replicated or independently verified. Of course Apple is going to say their system is nearly perfect, that's what all companies do. The onus is on Apple to prove that their marketing claims reflect reality. So this tells us you don’t know what algorithm Apple is using… …And are accusing Apple of lying, when it is clear that you haven’t read about how they avoid false positives. I think the onus is on you to prove your accusation. > This is like saying the normal principles of computing don't apply to new Apple products because they might have invented a new brand computing paradigm that isn't anything like any classical or quantum computer That just silly. It’s doesn’t take breaking the laws of quantum or classical computing to build a system with a low false positive rate. One obvious way would be to leverage multiple images rather than just one. Increasing the sample size of a population sample generally reduces the false positive rate. Have you considered that someone could build a system this way?

zekrioca 5y ago
Very patronizing of you. You clearly never learned that both classical (like your "sample size" example) and advanced statistical models are susceptible to first-order evasion attacks (or “Adversarial Examples”) that fool models at run-time. But go trust Apple's 1/1.000.000.000.000 claims.
- zepto 5y ago
  Obviously such an attack has nothing to do with the false positive rate. But, setting that aside, can you explain how a first order evasion attack can be used against Apple’s mechanism? They are a real kind of attack in the lab, but it’s not obvious how they could be used to exploit Apple’s CSAM detection. If you have reason to think they are a real threat, I’m sure you can explain.
  - zekrioca 5y ago
    > Obviously such an attack has nothing to do with the false positive rate. At face value, they indeed don’t. But the premise from Apple’s white paper that their mechanism can’t be tricked is not realistic. > If you have reason to think they are a real threat, I’m sure you can explain. Yes, I can.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > At face value, they indeed don’t. So this wasn’t relevant. > But the premise from Apple’s white paper that their mechanism can’t be tricked is not realistic. They don’t say it can’t be tricked. You are misrepresenting them. >> If you have reason to think they are a real threat, I’m sure you can explain. > Yes, I can. No you can’t, because they are not a real threat.

by zepto 5y ago

zekrioca 5y ago

Very patronizing of you. You clearly never learned that both classical (like your "sample size" example) and advanced statistical models are susceptible to first-order evasion attacks (or “Adversarial Examples”) that fool models at run-time. But go trust Apple's 1/1.000.000.000.000 claims.

zepto 5y ago
Obviously such an attack has nothing to do with the false positive rate. But, setting that aside, can you explain how a first order evasion attack can be used against Apple’s mechanism? They are a real kind of attack in the lab, but it’s not obvious how they could be used to exploit Apple’s CSAM detection. If you have reason to think they are a real threat, I’m sure you can explain.
- zekrioca 5y ago
  > Obviously such an attack has nothing to do with the false positive rate. At face value, they indeed don’t. But the premise from Apple’s white paper that their mechanism can’t be tricked is not realistic. > If you have reason to think they are a real threat, I’m sure you can explain. Yes, I can.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > At face value, they indeed don’t. So this wasn’t relevant. > But the premise from Apple’s white paper that their mechanism can’t be tricked is not realistic. They don’t say it can’t be tricked. You are misrepresenting them. >> If you have reason to think they are a real threat, I’m sure you can explain. > Yes, I can. No you can’t, because they are not a real threat.