> a human reviewer has to confirm that the photos are illegal before any action is taken The reviewer actually only confirms that the-photos-as-modified-by-an-

> a human reviewer has to confirm that the photos are illegal before any action is taken The reviewer actually only confirms that the-photos-as-modified-by-an-undisclosed-transformation are illegal, and this strategic ambiguity is presumably designed to maintain plausible deniability that what Apple subjects its reviewers to is a) not psychologically damaging, and b) not illegal to possess. Unfortunately this is "security by obscurity", so we have to assume it is vulnerable to image scaling attacks[0]. Unless Apple document their human review process, and allow an independent audit of the technology (to provide a strong mathematical guarantee that it is not susceptible to such image-smuggling attacks) and independent verification that the published process is the one they actually use, then there is an unacceptably high chance that a human reviewer will trigger a legal process against users for files they couldn't tell contained illegal data. [0] https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2020/husky-ai-image-rescaling-attacks/ https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2020/husky-ai-image-res...