4 ms·

It says: > This shows that the database can be tainted with non-CSAM material by an entity that can submit entries to it. Actually, it can easily be tainted b

It says: > This shows that the database can be tainted with non-CSAM material by an entity that can submit entries to it. Actually, it can easily be tainted by anybody. Take your massaged hash-colliding image, which remember is still visually child porn, and post it on some pedos-R-us forum. The people who maintain the database actively troll those forums. They'll see the image and add the hash to the database for you.

regularjack 3y ago
You'd be publishing child porn, which I think is not the wisest thing to be doing.
- Hizonner 3y ago
  Tainting the database is probably already chargeable as something. The point is that the person doing this doesn't expect to get caught. And frankly they're probably right in that.
  - semiquaver 3y ago
    > Tainting the database is probably already chargeable as something This is definitely true. Good old “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access” in the CFAA. It’s so vague as to be able to make almost _anything_ the government doesn’t like involving computers illegal.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  A spy agency or secret police doing this to use the client-side scanning system as a surveillance/censorship system for political media would not care about that.
  - giantrobot 3y ago
    Even if such systems were only used for their stated purpose of finding CSAM, because no one can audit the database of hashes there's no guarantee that non-CSAM images aren't in there. Just being accused of having CSAM is a life ruining event. Even if someone is eventually cleared of charges their life is forever altered. The "We Got Him!!" headlines are front page news, retractions are filed in a basement filing cabinet with a sign that says "Beware of Leopard".
    - gambiting 3y ago
      Which is why names and pictures of the accused should remain secret until the verdict, like it already happens in many other countries. But that's a separate topic.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  Nah; you'll probably go about it by publishing very realistic AI generated copies so your actions are still legal.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Nah; you'll probably go about it by publishing very realistic AI generated copies so your actions are still legal. In many jurisdictions worldwide, producing/distributing/possessing "very realistic AI generated" child pornography is a crime. According to Wikipedia, [0] it is criminal in these jurisdictions: Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom. Furthermore, Wikipedia says it is in somewhat of a legal grey area in Argentina, Austria, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. Regarding the US in particular: the Supreme Court ruled in the 2002 case of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition [1] that the child pornography exception to the First Amendment does not include "virtual child pornography", so long as it does not involve images of real children (i.e. using AI to take a non-pornographic image of a real child and turning it into a pornographic image of that child). However, while this bars prosecuting AI-generated child pornography under child pornography laws, it does not bar prosecuting it under obscenity laws. In the US, obscenity laws are much narrower than child pornography laws, so it is more difficult to get convictions, but people have gone to prison for violating them (e.g. Ira Isaacs [2] in 2012/2013, Paul F Little aka Max Hardcore [3] in 2008/2009). It can be difficult to convince a jury to convict, but realistic AI-generated child pornography may be one of those cases in which many juries would. Furthermore, Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition is not set in stone–given technological developments since then, and the changed composition of the Supreme Court, it is possible that some prosecutor might seek to overturn it, and you can't say for certain they would fail. Given all this, I think Wikipedia is right to say it is a "legal grey area" in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs#Further_charges,_retrial_and_conviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs#Further_charges,_re... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#2005_arrest_and_prison_sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#2005_arrest_and_p...
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  This is probably a state-level actor doing it. They're not at risk.
grayhatter 3y ago
[flagged]
- Hizonner 3y ago
  Angle brackets are traditionally used for actual quotes. > Step one, break cryptographically secure hashing system These "perceptual hashes" are not (and cannot be) cryptographically secure, and practical collision attacks have been tested and published. Did you actually read the main article at all? I don't think I'm even going to bother with the rest.
  - grayhatter 3y ago
    PhotoDNA doesn't use CS hashes, but others I've looked at do use them. But you're right, you probably don't wanna respond to my parody of you suggestion to trade in CSAM...
    - sterlind 3y ago
      You're saying that there are cryptographically-secure PhotoDNA-like hash algorithms? That's remarkable, if true, though I'm not sure if the schemes you're referring to are resistant to preimage recovery or hash collision (different things!)
      - grayhatter 3y ago
        I dont want to oversell it, having really only seen what I might consider marketing material... I'm pretty sure they're only using a CS hash for the database, where the photo hash is similar to photodna, and they're only adding some indirection. My assumption was something like sha_something(photodna(image))
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > I'm starting to get the feeling this is a bad idea It sure sounds like a bad idea for you or I to do, but would be it be a bad idea for $HOSTILE_NATION's intelligence agency? What about domestic intelligence agencies?

regularjack 3y ago

You'd be publishing child porn, which I think is not the wisest thing to be doing.

Hizonner 3y ago
Tainting the database is probably already chargeable as something. The point is that the person doing this doesn't expect to get caught. And frankly they're probably right in that.
- semiquaver 3y ago
  > Tainting the database is probably already chargeable as something This is definitely true. Good old “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access” in the CFAA. It’s so vague as to be able to make almost _anything_ the government doesn’t like involving computers illegal.
mcpackieh 3y ago
A spy agency or secret police doing this to use the client-side scanning system as a surveillance/censorship system for political media would not care about that.
- giantrobot 3y ago
  Even if such systems were only used for their stated purpose of finding CSAM, because no one can audit the database of hashes there's no guarantee that non-CSAM images aren't in there. Just being accused of having CSAM is a life ruining event. Even if someone is eventually cleared of charges their life is forever altered. The "We Got Him!!" headlines are front page news, retractions are filed in a basement filing cabinet with a sign that says "Beware of Leopard".
  - gambiting 3y ago
    Which is why names and pictures of the accused should remain secret until the verdict, like it already happens in many other countries. But that's a separate topic.
tick_tock_tick 3y ago
Nah; you'll probably go about it by publishing very realistic AI generated copies so your actions are still legal.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Nah; you'll probably go about it by publishing very realistic AI generated copies so your actions are still legal. In many jurisdictions worldwide, producing/distributing/possessing "very realistic AI generated" child pornography is a crime. According to Wikipedia, [0] it is criminal in these jurisdictions: Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom. Furthermore, Wikipedia says it is in somewhat of a legal grey area in Argentina, Austria, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. Regarding the US in particular: the Supreme Court ruled in the 2002 case of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition [1] that the child pornography exception to the First Amendment does not include "virtual child pornography", so long as it does not involve images of real children (i.e. using AI to take a non-pornographic image of a real child and turning it into a pornographic image of that child). However, while this bars prosecuting AI-generated child pornography under child pornography laws, it does not bar prosecuting it under obscenity laws. In the US, obscenity laws are much narrower than child pornography laws, so it is more difficult to get convictions, but people have gone to prison for violating them (e.g. Ira Isaacs [2] in 2012/2013, Paul F Little aka Max Hardcore [3] in 2008/2009). It can be difficult to convince a jury to convict, but realistic AI-generated child pornography may be one of those cases in which many juries would. Furthermore, Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition is not set in stone–given technological developments since then, and the changed composition of the Supreme Court, it is possible that some prosecutor might seek to overturn it, and you can't say for certain they would fail. Given all this, I think Wikipedia is right to say it is a "legal grey area" in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs#Further_charges,_retrial_and_conviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs#Further_charges,_re... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#2005_arrest_and_prison_sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#2005_arrest_and_p...
LorenPechtel 3y ago
This is probably a state-level actor doing it. They're not at risk.

grayhatter 3y ago

[flagged]

Hizonner 3y ago
Angle brackets are traditionally used for actual quotes. > Step one, break cryptographically secure hashing system These "perceptual hashes" are not (and cannot be) cryptographically secure, and practical collision attacks have been tested and published. Did you actually read the main article at all? I don't think I'm even going to bother with the rest.
- grayhatter 3y ago
  PhotoDNA doesn't use CS hashes, but others I've looked at do use them. But you're right, you probably don't wanna respond to my parody of you suggestion to trade in CSAM...
  - sterlind 3y ago
    You're saying that there are cryptographically-secure PhotoDNA-like hash algorithms? That's remarkable, if true, though I'm not sure if the schemes you're referring to are resistant to preimage recovery or hash collision (different things!)
    - grayhatter 3y ago
      I dont want to oversell it, having really only seen what I might consider marketing material... I'm pretty sure they're only using a CS hash for the database, where the photo hash is similar to photodna, and they're only adding some indirection. My assumption was something like sha_something(photodna(image))
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> I'm starting to get the feeling this is a bad idea It sure sounds like a bad idea for you or I to do, but would be it be a bad idea for $HOSTILE_NATION's intelligence agency? What about domestic intelligence agencies?