Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot • Hacker News Board

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#51

Post by giobox » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 9:48 PM UTC

moyix wrote: post #3

BadassFractal wrote: post #2

Tricky. Sending them all of your potentially leaked embarrassing photos so that they can store them and prevent them from leaking out. If they get hacked now someone has a lifetime supply of blackmail material. Not clear if the cure is better than the ailment.

From the fine article: "We store the photo hash—not the photo—to prevent someone from uploading the photo in the future. If someone tries to upload the image to our platform, like all photos on Facebook, it is run through a database of these hashes and if it matches we do not allow it to be posted or shared."

All you can do is take FB at their word that the image is destroyed irrevocably.

Given what we know about data retention policies at big tech firms, I'm not so sure I would feel confident taking the press release at face value. I'd really like to see a white paper or similar outlining the specifics of how this is being handled. I'd also have questions around what steps have been taken to prevent rogue Facebook employees trying to obtain the images.

I really wish they had found a way to generate the hashes they require client side and not receive the image at all, especially as this is something that presumably would be really great for revenge porn victims.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#52

Post by wjh_ » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

evgen wrote: post #41

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.)

PhotoDNA would be an option, I imagine. Or at least something similar!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#53

Post by rhizome » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 9:54 PM UTC

deusofnull wrote: post #45

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…

Or they can block display of the photo until all faces approve.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#54

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

ImSkeptical wrote: post #43

Dylan16807 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Doesn't this system already exist? But reporting an image means it wasn't preemptively blocked, the benefit of the new system.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#55

Post by intopieces » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 10:01 PM UTC

It’s interesting that the general consensus is strangers seeing your nudes is creepy (referring to the manual processing aspect.) I understand it on a fundamentally emotional level: I want absolute control of my private life / photos / etc. I am embarrassed at the idea of being seen naked without my active participation. On a logical level, though, what difference does it make if every person you will never meet has seen your dick?

It’s a philosophical question, to be sure.

Also, what happens with these manual reviews that turn up underage nudes? Teen sexting is a thing. For that matter, isn’t Snapchat a massive repository of child pornography?

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#56

Post by dmitrygr » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 10:03 PM UTC

So they basically openly admit that a human will review nudes? How is this in any way a sane idea? If you were already scarred (for life, likely) by said revenge porn existing and leaking out somewhere non-facebook, likely the last thing you want is to be forced, YOURSELF, to send it to someone (facebook)

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#57

Post by nimblegorilla » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 10:14 PM UTC

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.

Why do you seem surprised by this? I can't fathom anything about Facebook's design that implies my posted content is hidden from employees.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#58

Post by LukaAl » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 10:17 PM UTC

evgen wrote: post #41

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.)

Agree, that's a problem but there are options to solve it. Look at PhotoDNA by Microsoft [0]. But it is a second step. First, you need the reporting properly done.

[0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/photodna

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#59

Post by jsjohnst » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 10:17 PM UTC

evgen wrote: post #41

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.)

This is already a solved problem at FB (PhotoDNA does this for them for CP images).

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#60

Post by Xeoncross » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 10:19 PM UTC

The better solution is to have the image hashed and NOT sent to facebook. If the hash matches an existing image [A]. If the hash isn't found [B].

[A]: human can review the image they already have

[B]: Facebook waits until someone uploads an image that matches and then reviews the image (as normal) but with a marker alerting the problem.

The benefit is that people NOT affected won't have to upload lots of images of themselves to facebook personal for "review" just to be sure.

The problem is that should facebook update it's hashing or find better ways to match images, having the original image would allow them to transition. This point is moot though since facebook claims not to save the image anyway.