Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

newsroom.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 184 posts

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#41

Post by evgen »

LukaAl wrote: post #38

As other has pointed out, this is extremely creepy. The easiest solution would have been this one: - The user uses a JS solution to hash the images on the client, without the image being uploaded - She compiles a form with additional information (e.g: capture her account, reasons for uploading, suspect person sharing the picture) - The picture is saved in the DB as un-verified revenge porn. - The first time someone u…

Now figure out a way to do step #1 (user does a hash client-side) without making it trivial for someone else to create a filter that adds enough noise to invalidate step #4 (uploaded pics that match a hash are quarantined.)

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#42

Post by rrix2 »

danbruc wrote: post #39
alexggordon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that infeasible to have a web platform that encrypts users messages, just each client gets an encryption key. Look at Telegram, or even FB Messenger end to end encryption. I'm not saying they ever said they didn't have the ability to do it, I'm saying it's weird that they would use "message snooping" as a form of user photo submission.

When I send messages using the Messenger app - which is supposed to use end-to-end encryption, isn't it? - I can see and search those messages on facebook.com. Something does not add up here. And if they have the keys on their servers, then it's rather pointless to use end-to-end encryption in the first place.

facebook only does end-to-end for "secret" conversations started in their mobile app.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-app/1084673321594605...

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#43

Post by ImSkeptical »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #16
pault wrote: post #4

This is insane. If they can fingerprint your images, why can't they provide a tool for processing the image and sending the fingerprint only? Can you imagine how big of a target a tailor made database of blackmail material linked to facebook accounts would be?

They could just send fingerprints, sure. The problem is that you presumably want the image to be blocked immediately upon upload. But facebook is worried that people will abuse the system, and they don't want images to be instantly wrongfully blocked until someone can review it. Abuse-resistance. Instant blocking. Perfect privacy. Pick two. There's no perfect solution.

Why not suspend reported images for review. If the review indicates the reporter is abusing the system, blacklist the reporter from the automatic function. Also block new and recent accounts, and stop automatic blocking for images on frequently targeted accounts and major accounts (e.g. If someone is reporting Donald Trump, manually check, don't automatically remove).

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#45

Post by deusofnull »

The discussion surrounding this made me think of a feature I'd love to have along these lines. I'd like to be able to blacklist people / certain people from uploading pictures that facebook detects my face in. Fb as a platform must already have this functionality, what with the auto face identification and privacy / review post settings.

I can imagine images of people that aren't "non-consensual intimate images" that they'd reasonably still like to be able to block being posted.

One use case I can imagine is doxxing prevention. Say there is a national news story involving some random person in some small town that exposes the persons face and name and rough location. Some group of enraged internet denizens start sharing the person's face and name all over the place as a means to spread their pitchfork & torches mob against them.

Seems like a reasonable feature to me. Recently a professor in my state made some remarks about white privilege and the doxxing of him was so violent and pervasive that he and his family had to leave the state for months, and he still gets threats and needs protection on campus.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#46

Post by danbruc »

rrix2 wrote: post #42
danbruc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I send messages using the Messenger app - which is supposed to use end-to-end encryption, isn't it? - I can see and search those messages on facebook.com. Something does not add up here. And if they have the keys on their servers, then it's rather pointless to use end-to-end encryption in the first place.

facebook only does end-to-end for "secret" conversations started in their mobile app. [1] https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-app/1084673321594605...

That explains it and it seems unavailable in the Windows Phone version. And because I never owned or used an iPhone or Android device I was unaware of this difference.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#47

Post by d0ugie »

DiThi wrote: post #8
pault wrote: post #4

This is insane. If they can fingerprint your images, why can't they provide a tool for processing the image and sending the fingerprint only? Can you imagine how big of a target a tailor made database of blackmail material linked to facebook accounts would be?

If you can send only the fingerprint, what stops you from uploading photos you are not in? A better idea may be an uploading tool where you can obscure some parts for verification.

That sounds like a solution to me, it satisfies whatever the need is for human involvement while enabling the user to redact the weaponizable elements of the picture.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#48

Post by giobox »

Apreche wrote: post #12

Ok, so now all the harassers out there are just going to edit a few pixels on the images before uploading, so the hash isn't caught. All the same tricks use don YouTube to avoid the copyright bot, will work here as well.

I have no knowledge of the implementation, but I think it's more than likely a safe bet that someone at Facebook probably thought of this and chose a slightly more sophisticated approach. The entire system would be completely pointless otherwise!

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#49

Post by porfirium »

danbruc wrote: post #33
alexggordon wrote: post #24

> To establish which image is of concern, people will be asked to send the image to themselves on Messenger. > Once we receive this notification, a specially trained representative from our Community Operations team reviews and hashes the image, which creates a human-unreadable, numerical fingerprint of it. This clearly implicates that Facebook has, almost without reserve, the ability to read messages from user to us…

This clearly implicates that Facebook has, almost without reserve, the ability to read messages from user to user (even though it might limited to messages to oneself), and exposes that ability to its employees. You can view and search your message history on Facebook, so there is not really any question that they have and can read all messages. I never explicitly checked it but at least I never noticed any gaps, i.e…

Using Messenger you can start a secret conversation with someone which is encrypted end-to-end. Those conversations only exist in the current device. But regular conversations are not encrypted in any way.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#50

Post by CGamesPlay »

Apreche wrote: post #12

Ok, so now all the harassers out there are just going to edit a few pixels on the images before uploading, so the hash isn't caught. All the same tricks use don YouTube to avoid the copyright bot, will work here as well.

This is likely the same image hashing they use to detect child pornography, and there's been a lot of work invested into making sure that those types of filters don't prevent the detection. You can very effectively require that the "real" image is visually entirely dissimilar.

Now, obviously you can't prevent the actual data from being distributed. For example, you could base64 encode the image and send it as a series of messages instead.

The motivation for revenge porn is to hurt the other person. One vector for this is to post it to all of your mutual friends so that the victim is shamed. This adds a barrier so that the mutual friends have to invest work into getting and distributing the porn, and won't accidentally see it flowing through their feed.

Post reply on HN