3 ms·

This reminds me that I should really publish that blog post about using hashes to send documents "into the future" (really just to prove you wrote them at an ea

This reminds me that I should really publish that blog post about using hashes to send documents "into the future" (really just to prove you wrote them at an earlier date) at some point. >Hash matching, or hash scanning, compares certain pieces of content such as videos, pictures or text, to a database of illegal content. It is done by turning the content into “hashes”, a sample of the content a bit like a fingerprint. The hashes of content stored or shared by a specific user are then compared to the hashes of known illegal content in a database and result in a match if the software deems that the hashes are identical or similar enough. Because one of the things I realized while writing it is that there's an interesting contrapositive to keeping your own public list of hashes online somewhere: 1. By putting a hash on your public hash list, you are making a claim that you have access to a particular document at a particular time. 2. If someone else posts a hash on your hash list, say to a well-known document like the HTML source of example.com, they have in effect proven that you are not the sole person who can edit that hash list, and 3. Therefore your claim to access of anything on that hash list is repudiable and hence the entire list must be thrown out. So... Maybe there's a similar counterjamming method available here? E.g. stuff the hash of "Hello world" into one of these illegal databases, then show it's there, to call into question the idea that everything on these databases is illegal and thereby get them thrown out of court. (P.S., I'm almost positive you can use keypair encryption to get around this, but I haven't taken a bus ride long enough to puzzle out the details of how yet.)

lstodd 3y ago
Looks like you're not familiar with how these sorts of government databases are usually run. It is as follows: 1. nothing ever gets deleted for any reasonable reason. 2. bribes and connections will suffice to delete or include anything 3. even so, it's a slow-as-molasses mess that just gets in everyone's way 4. but still it can't be uprooted because budgets won't spend themselves IDK what UK wants with this shit. As the examples of China and lately Russia show, this just does not work against the savvy, and the rest are adequately blinded with conventional propaganda already, so what's the point?
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
  Right, but what I'm saying is #1 and #2 could easily make any evidence from these databases inadmissible in court. It's a straightforward argument for any lawyer to make.
  - EPWN3D 3y ago
    "Your honor the defendant's self-maintained list of hashes is obviously inadmissible because if authentic, it won't be incriminating, and if tampered with, it must be disregarded. This has no relevance to the hashes independently discovered in his possession, which were found to be on Ofcom's list of illegal hashes." "Agreed, motion to exclude granted, the case will proceed to trial."
    - hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
      Alright, my bad for not being more concrete. Let me try: "Your honor, the hash 6f5902ac237024bdd0c176cb93063dc4 was found in Ofcom's illegal hash list, which is the MD5 hash for 'hello world' all lowercase. 'hello world' is obviously not illegal. Someone must have found a way to put it in there, perhaps maliciously, perhaps by accident, perhaps due to a bribe [per the parent comment], perhaps as an act of protest. Ether way, it proves not every hash in the hash dump is illegal, and we have no way of knowing whether the legal ones outnumber the illegal ones by 1 to 10, or 10 to 1, or 1 million to 1. Indeed we have good reason to believe malicious actors would want to fill this database up with meaningless hashes as much as possible if any backdoor was found. Therefore evidence from Ofcam's database must be considered inadmissible."
      - pixl97 3y ago
        Eh how do you think this hash database would work? More likely it would be... without you or your lawyer present.."device X owned by person Y had a hash hit register to child pornography, we would like a search warrant for this device" Judge "granted"
  - lstodd 3y ago

lstodd 3y ago

Looks like you're not familiar with how these sorts of government databases are usually run. It is as follows: 1. nothing ever gets deleted for any reasonable reason. 2. bribes and connections will suffice to delete or include anything 3. even so, it's a slow-as-molasses mess that just gets in everyone's way 4. but still it can't be uprooted because budgets won't spend themselves IDK what UK wants with this shit. As the examples of China and lately Russia show, this just does not work against the savvy, and the rest are adequately blinded with conventional propaganda already, so what's the point?

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
Right, but what I'm saying is #1 and #2 could easily make any evidence from these databases inadmissible in court. It's a straightforward argument for any lawyer to make.
- EPWN3D 3y ago
  "Your honor the defendant's self-maintained list of hashes is obviously inadmissible because if authentic, it won't be incriminating, and if tampered with, it must be disregarded. This has no relevance to the hashes independently discovered in his possession, which were found to be on Ofcom's list of illegal hashes." "Agreed, motion to exclude granted, the case will proceed to trial."
  - hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
    Alright, my bad for not being more concrete. Let me try: "Your honor, the hash 6f5902ac237024bdd0c176cb93063dc4 was found in Ofcom's illegal hash list, which is the MD5 hash for 'hello world' all lowercase. 'hello world' is obviously not illegal. Someone must have found a way to put it in there, perhaps maliciously, perhaps by accident, perhaps due to a bribe [per the parent comment], perhaps as an act of protest. Ether way, it proves not every hash in the hash dump is illegal, and we have no way of knowing whether the legal ones outnumber the illegal ones by 1 to 10, or 10 to 1, or 1 million to 1. Indeed we have good reason to believe malicious actors would want to fill this database up with meaningless hashes as much as possible if any backdoor was found. Therefore evidence from Ofcam's database must be considered inadmissible."
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Eh how do you think this hash database would work? More likely it would be... without you or your lawyer present.."device X owned by person Y had a hash hit register to child pornography, we would like a search warrant for this device" Judge "granted"
- lstodd 3y ago