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

71–80 of 184 posts

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#71

Post by pishpash »

Xeoncross wrote: post #60

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 th…

You'll have to guarantee the authenticity of the client side code, but yes.

Here's what you do: on the client side embed image into a semantic space (using NN or whatever), quantize, _then_ hash the representation. Afterwards you send the hash. If you had to change client side code, you can just ask the user to redo the process.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#72

Post by oh_sigh »

the8472 wrote: post #69
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…

> - The user uses a JS solution to hash the images on the client, without the image being uploaded You have to trust facebook in either case, each time you do it. Either to handle your nude pics properly or to serve you javascript that does what they claim it does, every single time. On the other hand an open source desktop application only needs to be audited once and then can be validated based on a hash. In browse…

Nobody wants to run a desktop application given to them from facebook

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#73

Post by oh_sigh »

turc1656 wrote: post #63

This is dumb. A hash? That's only going to deter the most incompetent internet users when it comes to a file type that is subject to alteration without losing it's information value (pictures, video, music, etc.). All someone has to do is change a single bit/pixel in the image and the hash will be different. No one will notice that and it defeats the hash. Hell, you don't even have to do that. You can just rotate the…

It could be a perceptual hash. Who knows? The article doesn't go into detail.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#74

Post by cowpig »

intopieces wrote: post #55

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…

What's really bizarre to me is that people here don't think using facebook in general is creepy...

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#75

Post by oh_sigh »

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.

md5/sha isn't the only hashing method. There are perceptual hashes which are fairly resilient to simply editing few pixels, or rotating/resizing/cropping an image.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#76

Post by dmitrygr »

skybrian wrote: post #65
dmitrygr wrote: post #56

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)

From the article: "people can already report if their intimate images have been shared on our platform without their consent". If it already happened, they don't need to upload it again. Presumably this new process is for prevention when it didn't happen yet but they have good reason to suspect that it will.

"if it already happened on facebook" != "if it already happened"

There is, in fact, a whole world outside of www.thefacebook.com

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#77

Post by Xeoncross »

pishpash wrote: post #71
Xeoncross wrote: post #60

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 th…

You'll have to guarantee the authenticity of the client side code, but yes. Here's what you do: on the client side embed image into a semantic space (using NN or whatever), quantize, _then_ hash the representation. Afterwards you send the hash. If you had to change client side code, you can just ask the user to redo the process.

Yes, I was hoping they would not simply `sha1()` the image data. I wouldn't worry much about trying to fake hashes since we are already allowing them to provide whatever image as input they want (hence the review).

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#78

Post by moyix »

wjh_ wrote: post #52
evgen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Honestly, I doubt that most of these sorts of algorithms would survive concerted attacks – that's why they tend to be closely guarded.

Alex Stamos (Facebook's CISO) implies this is why they can't do it client-side:

https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/928646228472078336

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#79

Post by the8472 »

evgen wrote: post #40
tonyarkles wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way for me to audit that the image is never stored? (No) It seems like that's a huge honeypot; someone compromises the "upload your naughty photos here" endpoint and has an endless supply of "non-consensual intimate images". Edit: Thinking about it a bit, I'd be way more comfortable with the idea of the image hashes being computed on-device and only the hashes being sent to the server. This opens a differe…

While this (client-side hashing) would be better in terms of privacy protection for this specific case it is not going to happen because Facebook is not allowed to perform the specific photo hashing client-side as this would expose the hashing mechanism to analysis.

maybe they shouldn't ask for nudes until they have designed an open source algorithm?

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#80

Post by the8472 »

oh_sigh wrote: post #72
the8472 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - The user uses a JS solution to hash the images on the client, without the image being uploaded You have to trust facebook in either case, each time you do it. Either to handle your nude pics properly or to serve you javascript that does what they claim it does, every single time. On the other hand an open source desktop application only needs to be audited once and then can be validated based on a hash. In browse…

Nobody wants to run a desktop application given to them from facebook

> only needs to be audited once and then can be validated based on a hash.

I thought I covered that concern, but I neglected to mention that it should be open source so everyone can audit it.

Post reply on HN