3 ms·

The whole point flew over your head. If it's unchanged to the human eye then surely the human reviewer will see that it's a false positive?

• mannerheim 5y ago
  No, it's important to point that out lest people think collisions can only be generated with contrived examples. I haven't studied neural hashes in particular, but for CNNs it's extremely trivial to come up with adversarial examples for arbitrary images. Anyway, as for human reviewers, depends on what the image being perturbed is. Computer repair employees have called the police on people who've had pictures of their children in the bath. My understanding is that Apple does not have the source images, only NCMEC, so Apple's employees wouldn't necessarily see that such a case is a false positive. One would hope that when it gets sent to NCMEC, their employees would compare to the source image and see that is a false positive, though.
  • int_19h 5y ago
    Which would still be a privacy violation, since an actual human is looking at a photo you haven't consented to share with them.
    • brokenmachine 5y ago
      That will be clearly laid out on page 1174 of Apples ToS that you had to click to be able to use your $1200 phone for anything but a paperweight.