4 ms·

Here's what I don't get: who is importing CSAM into their camera roll in the first place? I for one have never felt the urge to import regular, legal porn into

Here's what I don't get: who is importing CSAM into their camera roll in the first place? I for one have never felt the urge to import regular, legal porn into my camera roll. Who the hell is going to be doing that with stuff they know will land them in prison? Who the hell co-mingles their deepest darkest dirtiest secret amongst pictures of their family and last night’s dinner? I can believe that some people might be so technically illiterate that they'd upload CSAM to a private Facebook group thinking it was secure. But as far as I'm aware it's not possible to password protect photo albums using the built-in Photos app.

simondotau 5y ago
Actually it occurs to me that perhaps they're noticing a lot of CSAM is being produced with smartphone cameras and are hoping to snag the phone which produced the originals. If they can get new content into their database before the photographer deletes them, they might find the phone which took the originals—and then find the child victim. Beyond implausible, but then most law enforcement tends to rely on someone eventually doing something stupid.
- phnofive 5y ago
  It is only supposed to detect CSAM already known to NCMEC, not identify new images.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    That's my point. If the original photographer doesn't delete them by the time they're known to NCMEC and the hash database is updated, they would match. As I said, I recognise this is beyond implausible.
  - 0xy 5y ago
    NCMEC's database does not only contain CSAM. It has never been audited. It's full of false positives. They are immune from FOIA requests. They are accountable to nobody. They work so closely with the FBI that there are FBI agents working on the database directly. NCMEC is essentially an unaccountable, unauditable department of the FBI that also happens to be incompetent (the amount of non-CSAM in the database is large).
    - simondotau 5y ago
      You don't know what's in it, but you do know it's full of false positives? I wonder, do you know how many of those false positives are flagged as A1?
      - 0xy 5y ago
        I know for a fact that it is full of false positives, there's also public sources making the same claim. [1] [1] https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-One-Bad-Apple.html https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On...
        simondotau 5y ago
        I clicked on your link hoping for serious analysis. I would have settled for interesting analysis. I was disappointed. It's just a guy who found one MD5 hash collision. The paragraph was written in a way that makes it unclear whether source of this specific hash was in fact NCMEC or if it was "other law enforcement sources". So which was it? Did this person follow up with the source to confirm whether his hash match was a false positive or a hash collision? So in short, the source for your claims has evidence of between zero and one false positives. Unimpressive would be an understatement.
        0xy 5y ago
        It was not a hash collision. It was a false positive. The way the hashing solution works doesn't really allow for a false positive except in extraordinarily rare circumstances. It matched a man holding a monkey full clothed as a CSAM image, direct from NCMEC's database. He encountered a 20% false positive rate while running a moderately popular image service, with an admittedly low sample size. It's still evidence, and given NCMEC is immune from oversight, FOIA and accountability, it's concerning. Also, the fact I know there are false positives does not stem from that post. I know it independently, but since you asked for a source stronger than "just trust a random internet guy", I gave you one. He's not the only person making the claim though, others throughout these threads with industry knowledge have confirmed what I already knew. If you're asking me to reveal how I know, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. I'd rather be accused of lying than elaborate.
jdlshore 5y ago
Apparently 70 million images have been reported by other providers (if I'm reading [1] correctly, which I'm not sure I am, since the paywall hides it before I can read closely). Assuming that's correct, the answer is "a lot of people." I find that eminently plausible. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-ab...
- simondotau 5y ago
  It looks like well over 90% of that is Facebook and the bulk of the remainder is Google and Yahoo who crawl the web and run large email services. None of those are analogous to importing CSAM into your smartphone's photo library.

simondotau 5y ago

Actually it occurs to me that perhaps they're noticing a lot of CSAM is being produced with smartphone cameras and are hoping to snag the phone which produced the originals. If they can get new content into their database before the photographer deletes them, they might find the phone which took the originals—and then find the child victim. Beyond implausible, but then most law enforcement tends to rely on someone eventually doing something stupid.

phnofive 5y ago
It is only supposed to detect CSAM already known to NCMEC, not identify new images.
- simondotau 5y ago
  That's my point. If the original photographer doesn't delete them by the time they're known to NCMEC and the hash database is updated, they would match. As I said, I recognise this is beyond implausible.
- 0xy 5y ago
  NCMEC's database does not only contain CSAM. It has never been audited. It's full of false positives. They are immune from FOIA requests. They are accountable to nobody. They work so closely with the FBI that there are FBI agents working on the database directly. NCMEC is essentially an unaccountable, unauditable department of the FBI that also happens to be incompetent (the amount of non-CSAM in the database is large).
  - simondotau 5y ago
    You don't know what's in it, but you do know it's full of false positives? I wonder, do you know how many of those false positives are flagged as A1?
    - 0xy 5y ago
      I know for a fact that it is full of false positives, there's also public sources making the same claim. [1] [1] https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-One-Bad-Apple.html https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On...
      - simondotau 5y ago
        I clicked on your link hoping for serious analysis. I would have settled for interesting analysis. I was disappointed. It's just a guy who found one MD5 hash collision. The paragraph was written in a way that makes it unclear whether source of this specific hash was in fact NCMEC or if it was "other law enforcement sources". So which was it? Did this person follow up with the source to confirm whether his hash match was a false positive or a hash collision? So in short, the source for your claims has evidence of between zero and one false positives. Unimpressive would be an understatement.
        0xy 5y ago
        It was not a hash collision. It was a false positive. The way the hashing solution works doesn't really allow for a false positive except in extraordinarily rare circumstances. It matched a man holding a monkey full clothed as a CSAM image, direct from NCMEC's database. He encountered a 20% false positive rate while running a moderately popular image service, with an admittedly low sample size. It's still evidence, and given NCMEC is immune from oversight, FOIA and accountability, it's concerning. Also, the fact I know there are false positives does not stem from that post. I know it independently, but since you asked for a source stronger than "just trust a random internet guy", I gave you one. He's not the only person making the claim though, others throughout these threads with industry knowledge have confirmed what I already knew. If you're asking me to reveal how I know, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. I'd rather be accused of lying than elaborate.

jdlshore 5y ago

Apparently 70 million images have been reported by other providers (if I'm reading [1] correctly, which I'm not sure I am, since the paywall hides it before I can read closely). Assuming that's correct, the answer is "a lot of people." I find that eminently plausible. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-ab...

simondotau 5y ago
It looks like well over 90% of that is Facebook and the bulk of the remainder is Google and Yahoo who crawl the web and run large email services. None of those are analogous to importing CSAM into your smartphone's photo library.