3 ms·
1. You mixed up generating child porn images that collide with targeted non-child-porn images, in order to taint the database and thereby suppress the target im
by Hizonner 3y ago
1. You mixed up generating child porn images that collide with targeted non-child-porn images, in order to taint the database and thereby suppress the target images, with generating non-child-porn images that collide with child porn images, in order to overwhelm the system with false positives.
2. You brought in matters that have nothing to do with hashing or child porn, but tend to generate flame wars.
3. You put sneer quotes around "racist", which makes it sound very much like you don't think any such thing exists.
- kypro 3y agoThank you. 1. Oh okay. I wasn't very clear there. By, "this is basically what I suggested we do a few years ago" I meant that we should look to exploit the limitations of these fingering printing algorithms to render them impractical. But yeah, my suggestion was that we should do the reverse. Rather than taint the database, taint the content. 2. That wasn't my intention. I was suggesting that there are likely other reasons governments are interested in this technology than, "think of the children". Hence, why I think we should seek to ways to render these algorithms ineffective were they deployed. But yes, please feel free to downvote if you feel my comment is unproductive. On reflection I agree it might be. I'm not really adding much here 3. You know what's annoying? I did that because I didn't to make an assertion either way to be as neutral as possible. I'm using quotes because others deem it racist, and that it's irrelevant what my personal position on that is. If you want my position on whether racism exists though, obviously I believe it does – I'd urge you to just assume good faith in the future.