5 ms·
The damage is already done by the time it gets to the point of devices being confiscated.
by minitoar 5y ago
The damage is already done by the time it gets to the point of devices being confiscated.
- endisneigh 5y agoCan you point to a single instance of that happening where it was due to a false positive?
- bawolff 5y agoIn a proposed system that has yet to be deployed?
- endisneigh 5y agoThis has already existed in PhotoDNA since 2008. This is not new
- toby- 5y agoExamples of on-device scanning via PhotoDNA?
- robertoandred 5y agoPeople’s photo libraries are scanned. The result is the same.
- minitoar 5y agoOnly if you’re putting your stuff in the cloud. There’s a big difference between my files on my computer and my files on someone else’s computer. Or at least there should be, IMO.
- robertoandred 5y agoYeah, only if you're putting your stuff in the cloud. The result is the same.
- bawolff 5y agoBut that's deployed in a very different way which makes the concerns being discussed much less likely to happen. Specificly the person doing the scanning already has access to photos and can double check the results without having to sieze the device, a rather public process.
- Unklejoe 5y agoIf we reduce it down to "someone being accused of a crime but later being found innocent", then there are several, and when it comes to sex crimes, the accusation alone is enough to ruin someone. People don't care about minor details such as the fact that the person was later found innocent. To them, it's the same as getting off on a technicality.
- endisneigh 5y agoOk yes - now then, PhotoDNA has existed since 2008. When has what you’ve described ever happened?
- hda2 5y agoPhotoDNA relies on perceptual hashing?
- rootusrootus 5y agoBy the time the FBI comes knocking for your devices, they have a lot of evidence, not a list of hash collisions.
- headShrinker 5y ago> By the time the FBI comes knocking for your devices, they have a lot of evidence, not a list of hash collisions. Not necessarily. The FBI knocks on your door when they have convinced a warrant-signing judge, that’s there is probable-cause, or that additional information can be collected to build a case in which the defendant will ‘plead’ or make a deal for sentence reduction. 90% of defendants make a deal and never go to trial because by that time the stakes are so high a guilty verdict includes the harshest possible sentence. FBI only needs to convince you they can win a case or the judge that there might be fruit behind a locked door, they don’t need direct evidence. It’s really up to the judge.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoI doubt it, all they need is this stuff and they can get a warrant to rummage through your stuff and take all your computers, usb drives, etc and also put your name on a watch list and your permanent record. Much like newspapers retracting mistakes if the story doesn't pan out, it goes on the back page. Plenty enough to wreck your life.
- heavyset_go 5y agoNo, the FBI's job is to investigate whether or not a crime has been committed. They'll do this by getting a warrant for your devices, and then take them and scan them.
- mrtranscendence 5y agoIf you don't actually have CSAM then the person at Apple who visually audits the collision set will not send your info to law enforcement, and nothing will be confiscated. Apple doesn't just take any instance of a collision and send it to the FBI.
- short_sells_poo 5y agoRight, because humans are infallible and never abuse their position either. And we are not talking about some underpaid contractors making life altering decisions. And we are also not talking about a system where just a false accusation can and will destroy one's life irreparably.