3 ms·
This assumes that it's impossible to reverse the perceptual hashes used here in such a way that you could determine poses and coloration, for one. And in retro
by laverya 5y ago
This assumes that it's impossible to reverse the perceptual hashes used here in such a way that you could determine poses and coloration, for one.
And in retrospect, you don't need to match that - you just need it to appear obviously pornographic after the blur is applied in order to get past Apple's reviewers. After that, the lucky individual's life is in the hands of the police/prosecutors. (I have to imagine that both real and faked cases will look pretty much like "Your honor/members of the jury, this person's device contained numerous photos matching known CSAM. No, we won't be showing you the pictures. No, the defence can't see them either." Can you imagine a "tough on crime" prosecutor taking the faked case to trial too? Would the police and prosecutors even know it was faked?)
- floatingatoll 5y agoApple's reviewers are comparing blurred originals to blurred matches. It needs to look like the blurred original associated with the checksum that matched. It is irrelevant whether the blurred match looks pornographic or not.
- ultrarunner 5y agoThis has already been demonstrated. https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1428083744280256512 https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/14280837442802565...
- floatingatoll 5y agoAt which point the image will be handed to the relevant CSAM group unblurred, who will do a visual comparison and find out immediately that it’s not a match, and then reject it without invoking law enforcement.