4 ms·

Right, because we have automated software child pornography recognizers.

by pyre 14y ago

ceejayoz 14y ago
It wouldn't be surprising. YouTube looks for video fingerprints of copyrighted data. Repurposing such technology to find copies of known CP videos would be pretty straightforward. Wouldn't help you with new material, of course.
- pyre 14y ago
  If you start filtering for child pornography, and people know about it, they will come at your hard if you miss anything. Even for a technology that gets all known child porn videos, people would be beating down the door to sue/bad mouth Facebook for missing the new ones. Mostly due to people being people, but also because the technology is 'magical' to far too many people in society so they feel like there are no limitations (or it's hard for them to grasp them).
runamok 14y ago
They already have image algorithms to detect nudity with a good degree of accuracy so that's probably enough to forbid an image or video.
- pyre 14y ago
  Like that won't cause a shitstorm. A social networking site that won't let people trade possibly nude images privately?
  - kamjam 14y ago
    I don't think he's talking about necessarily private, but they detect nudity on the "publicly" available images available in your albums which your friends an see... http://petapixel.com/2012/11/25/facebook-removes-risque-photograph-of-woman-showing-an-elbow/ http://petapixel.com/2012/11/25/facebook-removes-risque-phot...
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  That sort of thing might also flag a benign "Baby's first bath" video as child porn.
runamok 14y ago
They already have image algorithms to detect nudity with a good degree of accuracy so that's probably enough to forbid an image or video.
octo_t 14y ago
We do: Automatic detection of child pornography using color visual words - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6011977&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6011977 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=60... Automatic detection of child pornography - http://ro.ecu.edu.au/adf/60/ http://ro.ecu.edu.au/adf/60/
- pyre 14y ago
  I wouldn't call it a dectector: our approach can achieve a prioritization of content (equal error 11 – 24%) to improve the efficiency of forensic investigations of child sexual abuse at least not in the context of this discussion of fully automated solutions.
deepblueocean 14y ago
Not only do these exist, there are significant institutional practices that exist to facilitate the sharing of detection signatures between companies and between companies and various governments. It's good to prevent the re-sharing of child pornography, but a lot of companies don't like to talk about the systems because they're very much the same systems that the same companies are busy telling the content industry that they can't build to enforce copyrights. So they're generally kept pretty hush-hush by a kind of gentleman's agreement. I think general copyright is actually a thornier problem and this secrecy is unnecessary. CP is just something you can block if you see it. Tracking down exactly which uses of a copyrighted work are intended to be allowed and which are not is really much harder. And I think that's a legitimate argument, especially because it recasts the copyright debate in terms of compromises that make sense: if clearing a bunch of rights is confusing, maybe certain types of compulsory licenses are more attractive. But that debate is for another thread...
- pyre 14y ago
  | I think general copyright is actually a thornier | problem and this secrecy is unnecessary 1. When we talk about 'detecting copyright infringement' there is an implicit assumption that we're talking about the IP of major corporations. No one is going to bend over backwards to prevent copyright infringement of 'the small guy'[1]. 2. Even if you detect that a video contains copyrighted material, there is no central registry for you to determine if the person (or entity) has permission to distribute/use that material. Even if there was such a registry, how do you link it to an online id on some random website? 3. There is no middle-ground for fair use. Fair Use is something that is usually only definitively determined after a court battle. If restrictions are too strict, then the only way for one to exercise their Fair Use rights is a court battle. This effectively means that Fair Use would be dead for all but some rich, motivated people (at least on large content networks, e.g. YouTube). [1] Unless it wins brownie points with the public for getting a system in place to protect the 'big guys,' who are obviously the only ones that matter.

Right, because we have automated software child pornography recognizers.

by pyre 14y ago

Right, because we have automated software child pornography recognizers.

It wouldn't be surprising. YouTube looks for video fingerprints of copyrighted data. Repurposing such technology to find copies of known CP videos would be pretty straightforward. Wouldn't help you with new material, of course.

pyre 14y ago
If you start filtering for child pornography, and people know about it, they will come at your hard if you miss anything. Even for a technology that gets all known child porn videos, people would be beating down the door to sue/bad mouth Facebook for missing the new ones. Mostly due to people being people, but also because the technology is 'magical' to far too many people in society so they feel like there are no limitations (or it's hard for them to grasp them).

runamok 14y ago

They already have image algorithms to detect nudity with a good degree of accuracy so that's probably enough to forbid an image or video.

pyre 14y ago
Like that won't cause a shitstorm. A social networking site that won't let people trade possibly nude images privately?
- kamjam 14y ago
  I don't think he's talking about necessarily private, but they detect nudity on the "publicly" available images available in your albums which your friends an see... http://petapixel.com/2012/11/25/facebook-removes-risque-photograph-of-woman-showing-an-elbow/ http://petapixel.com/2012/11/25/facebook-removes-risque-phot...
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
That sort of thing might also flag a benign "Baby's first bath" video as child porn.

runamok 14y ago

They already have image algorithms to detect nudity with a good degree of accuracy so that's probably enough to forbid an image or video.

octo_t 14y ago

We do: Automatic detection of child pornography using color visual words - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6011977&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6011977 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=60... Automatic detection of child pornography - http://ro.ecu.edu.au/adf/60/ http://ro.ecu.edu.au/adf/60/

pyre 14y ago
I wouldn't call it a dectector: our approach can achieve a prioritization of content (equal error 11 – 24%) to improve the efficiency of forensic investigations of child sexual abuse at least not in the context of this discussion of fully automated solutions.

deepblueocean 14y ago

Not only do these exist, there are significant institutional practices that exist to facilitate the sharing of detection signatures between companies and between companies and various governments. It's good to prevent the re-sharing of child pornography, but a lot of companies don't like to talk about the systems because they're very much the same systems that the same companies are busy telling the content industry that they can't build to enforce copyrights. So they're generally kept pretty hush-hush by a kind of gentleman's agreement. I think general copyright is actually a thornier problem and this secrecy is unnecessary. CP is just something you can block if you see it. Tracking down exactly which uses of a copyrighted work are intended to be allowed and which are not is really much harder. And I think that's a legitimate argument, especially because it recasts the copyright debate in terms of compromises that make sense: if clearing a bunch of rights is confusing, maybe certain types of compulsory licenses are more attractive. But that debate is for another thread...

pyre 14y ago
| I think general copyright is actually a thornier | problem and this secrecy is unnecessary 1. When we talk about 'detecting copyright infringement' there is an implicit assumption that we're talking about the IP of major corporations. No one is going to bend over backwards to prevent copyright infringement of 'the small guy'[1]. 2. Even if you detect that a video contains copyrighted material, there is no central registry for you to determine if the person (or entity) has permission to distribute/use that material. Even if there was such a registry, how do you link it to an online id on some random website? 3. There is no middle-ground for fair use. Fair Use is something that is usually only definitively determined after a court battle. If restrictions are too strict, then the only way for one to exercise their Fair Use rights is a court battle. This effectively means that Fair Use would be dead for all but some rich, motivated people (at least on large content networks, e.g. YouTube). [1] Unless it wins brownie points with the public for getting a system in place to protect the 'big guys,' who are obviously the only ones that matter.