3 ms·

As many others have said, Google isn’t using a cryptographic hash here. It’s using perceptual hashing, which isn’t collision-safe at all.

• anigbrowl 2y ago
  Did you read the whole thing? and a more detailed examination of common perceptual hashing algorithms (skip to table 3 for the collision probabilities): https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2904/81.pdf https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2904/81.pdf And there was a whole lot of explanation of how probable cause works and how it's different from programmers' aspirations to perfection.
  • maronato 2y ago
    The table only proves the point. The lowest probability in the table is 1 in 100_000. Most others are 1 in 100. 28 billion photos are uploaded every week to Google Photos[1]. That’s at least 280k false positives per week. Should we really be performing 30 search warrants on innocent people per second? [1] https://blog.google/products/photos/storage-changes/ https://blog.google/products/photos/storage-changes/
    • anigbrowl 2y ago
      Do you have any evidence that this is happening? You don't think someone would have noticed by now if it were? And as I pointed out, we're not talking about a search warrant on a person, we're talking about whether it's necessary to get a search warrant to look at a picture to determine if it's an illegal image.