Comment by neycoda

4 years ago

I'm OK with software generating signatures from cloud drive images to eliminate child porn pictures and catch pedophiles.

7 comments

neycoda

Reply
raxxorrax  4 years ago

Have you ever had the impression that special interests are much more interested in copyright violations than child pornography? Or that it might extend to memes that sabotages carefully crafted propaganda? I do have that impression a lot.

I don't step in the lowest parts of the internet hell, but I am also not very picky about it. I have never encountered child pornography in 10 years of almost pathological internet usage.

  • GeekyBear  4 years ago

    Scanning for DRM violations was one of the use cases mentioned in the article linked above.

    • raxxorrax  4 years ago

      I didn't know what CSAM stood for so I first though this would be the reaction to the security issues iPhones faced. Oh, silly me.

      Additionally, by calculating hashes of media on peoples devices, you can quickly determine networks. A private image you shared with your friends? Unique hash and everyone that has it is probably in your network. That is aside from the issue that they would also just read your contacts.

AlexandrB  4 years ago

You should read the rest of the linked Twitter thread, because the issue is that if the hash algorithm has a collision vulnerability, any image could be manipulated to show up as "child porn" to the scanner.

  • shuckles  4 years ago

    Microsoft created and hosts the PhotoDNA service which all providers use, and PhotoDNA has false positives. All reports are supposed to be manually reviewed before being sent to Cyber Tip.

    • suizi  4 years ago

      But, are they? The Swiss federal police weren't too happy about the reports they received from the Cyber Tip.

subsection1h  4 years ago

LOL. Your HN account is only a year old, so maybe you weren't alive when the Patriot Act was passed and people like you supported it because of all the scary terrorists.

"Known as a 'sneak and peek' warrant, law enforcement was adamant Section 213 was needed to protect against terrorism. But the latest government report detailing the numbers of 'sneak and peek' warrants reveals that out of a total of over 11,000 sneak and peek requests, only 51 were used for terrorism."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/peekaboo-i-see-you-gov...