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

81–90 of 184 posts

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#81

Post by xanderstrike »

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…

You can download a complete copy of the data Facebook has on you, including all messages you've sent since your account was created [1]. I did this some years ago to graph changes in sentiment with friends.

1. https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#82

Post by karthikshan »

beaconstudios wrote: post #14
sp332 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revenge porn isn't all about nudity. And this does cover Messenger (and Instagram). The point isn't to get an image taken down after the fact, but to proactively block it from being posted or sent in the first place.

I thought facebook would run posted images through their AI nudity filter before allowing them to be posted? It's good that this covers messenger as I've read stories in the past of people being blackmailed over it, but surely there must be a better way than asking people to upload their private images to facebook. Plus, what's the case with younger facebook members? Do they upload the images and are therefore sharin…

It's probably infeasible to run that type of filter in-path during uploads without adding too much latency to posting, wheras the hashing approach is much less expensive. AI filters likely take down images after they've already been posted

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#83

Post by karthikshan »

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's an interesting idea, but might break whatever hashing method is used?

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#84

Post by wellboy »

Ok, I had to laugh. FB is literally the worst company to make this service with the worst privacy reputation ever.

Then the service makes the worst mistake that they actually upload nudes to their platform, PLUS they have a human look at it, which adds another layer of security leaks.

Did they do this intentionally or did they have such a huge lack of common sense when they decided how to design this and nobody in the project had the idea to address this.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#86

Post by statictype »

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

It’s better than sending them NSFW photos for human review

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#87

Post by DiThi »

karthikshan wrote: post #83
DiThi wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's an interesting idea, but might break whatever hashing method is used?

The idea is to hash the original image, but to send the obscured one for human verification. However this requires a different hashing method (such a Merkle tree) to know the unobscured parts match.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#88

Post by hnzix »

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

But it could force autoinstall from the website and autoscan your drives then preupload your nudie pics and tag them with your name. How convenient! If all your friends are using it then it must be safe right?

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#89

Post by 15155 »

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…

> 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.

If I take a photo of a public landscape and you happen to be there, do you have the right to prevent me from publishing it unaltered?

Keep in mind: you're not the primary subject (and no reasonable person would believe that you were) nor owner of the photo. Your likeness is not reasonably intended to alter the value of the photo.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#90

Post by 15155 »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #21
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.

Yeah I'm curious how their hashing mechanism works. Like, is it a straight up sha hash of the image or something a little more sophisticated that wouldn't be fooled by minor edits? Though in the latter case can that even technically be considered hashing? I guess it all depends on how they're doing it which brings us back to my first question...

They're (more than likely - almost certainly) using proprietary image fingerprinting techniques.

If you had access to the original implementation, you could probably defeat them permanently with minimal alteration via reverse engineering. Which is why you don't have access to the original software, its specifications, or implementation details.

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

Post reply on HN