3 ms·

> It proved that it was technically feasible, and was "privacy preserving". Didn't their paper disproved by reversing the perceptual hashes to reveal blurred v

> It proved that it was technically feasible, and was "privacy preserving". Didn't their paper disproved by reversing the perceptual hashes to reveal blurred version of the images being hashed, and Apple basically said "that's fair, it's not as robust as we wanted, let's visit this later"? If not, I'll happily stand corrected, but please share sources. Addenda: - Apple's original paper: https://web.archive.org/web/20210807165030/https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Technical_Summary.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20210807165030/https://www.apple... - Paper breaking the hash: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.06628 https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.06628 Edit: The second one is the wrong paper. I’ll find and link the correct one tomorrow. Keeping the link for transparency.

yogorenapan 3mo ago
> to reveal blurred version of the images being hashed Skimmed your linked paper. It seems they were able to classify hashes up to ~8% top-1 accuracy and ~30% top-10. Not exactly a blurred version, or any images at all. So for example, they can say that you probably have images of trees, or images of buildings, but without much other data & very low accuracy. I'd still be a lot more concerned about them simply flagging political images rather than trying to get a broad understanding of what type of photos I have
- soulofmischief 3mo ago
  It starts at a broad understanding and ends with people permanently giving up their right and ability to keep rogue corporate governments in check.
comex 3mo ago
The paper you linked doesn’t reveal blurred versions of the images being hashed. It does train a classifier to determine which of 1,000 ImageNet classes an image belongs to, which “achieved a top-1 test accuracy of 4.34%”.
- bayindirh 3mo ago
  Then, that’s the wrong paper. I’ll find it and link it as a reply to this comment. Probably tomorrow morning.
duskwuff 3mo ago
There's actually been some work to reverse the original PhotoDNA hash, with much more precise results than for Apple's NeuralHash: https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?archives/931-PhotoDNA-and-Limitations.html https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?archives/931-Pho... https://anishathalye.com/inverting-photodna/ https://anishathalye.com/inverting-photodna/
esnard 3mo ago
Could this be the correct link? https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06056 https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06056

yogorenapan 3mo ago

> to reveal blurred version of the images being hashed Skimmed your linked paper. It seems they were able to classify hashes up to ~8% top-1 accuracy and ~30% top-10. Not exactly a blurred version, or any images at all. So for example, they can say that you probably have images of trees, or images of buildings, but without much other data & very low accuracy. I'd still be a lot more concerned about them simply flagging political images rather than trying to get a broad understanding of what type of photos I have

soulofmischief 3mo ago
It starts at a broad understanding and ends with people permanently giving up their right and ability to keep rogue corporate governments in check.

comex 3mo ago

The paper you linked doesn’t reveal blurred versions of the images being hashed. It does train a classifier to determine which of 1,000 ImageNet classes an image belongs to, which “achieved a top-1 test accuracy of 4.34%”.

bayindirh 3mo ago
Then, that’s the wrong paper. I’ll find it and link it as a reply to this comment. Probably tomorrow morning.

duskwuff 3mo ago

There's actually been some work to reverse the original PhotoDNA hash, with much more precise results than for Apple's NeuralHash: https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?archives/931-PhotoDNA-and-Limitations.html https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?archives/931-Pho... https://anishathalye.com/inverting-photodna/ https://anishathalye.com/inverting-photodna/

esnard 3mo ago

Could this be the correct link? https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06056 https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06056