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

121–130 of 184 posts

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#121

Post by kelnos »

valuearb wrote: post #120
trjordan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an excellent Twitter thread on why they didn't do this: https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/928740488395608065 The salient bit: > A quick note to everybody who says 'calculate the hash locally': > A) Photo fingerprinting algorithms are usually not included in clients to prevent the development of circumvention techniques. > B) Humans need to review to prevent adversarial reporting. Further down the thread…

It's not a hard problem. Both A & B are bogus reasons. A) Any hash is going to be easily circumvented by anyone who owns Photoshop or any image editor. It's only going to catch those dumb enough not to modify the images, ie. most everyone. Doing the hash server side isn't the big problem though, because if you trust the Facebook App then by default you should trust the Facebook web applications. B) The big problem is…

A) I think we're talking about modification-resistant fingerprinting methods, not just a simple hash of the data.

B) That's a support nightmare; it would be nearly trivial to start submitting false reports from a ton of accounts without establishing a pattern so those accounts could easily be ignored. Regardless, how do you prove that you "own an image" (what does that even mean?) and that it was reported as an "intimate photo" maliciously?

I agree that FB's current solution is really bad, and if it were me, I certainly wouldn't pro-actively send in photos of myself, but I'm at a loss for how they can address A & B.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#122

Post by kelnos »

dannyw wrote: post #107
moyix wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The attacker isn’t a national state adversary. The attacker is a vengeful ex. The chances of such attacker even been aware of what hashing is, is close to zero. Whoever designed this system is probably heavy on security, but low on product.

No, the attacker is a bored hacker who wants to create problems for FB, just because they feel like it.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#123

Post by JauntyHatAngle »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #106
rcpt wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of weird that they didn't do things this way as they supposedly already use hashing to flag child porn cf. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/iwf-hash-lists-child-abuse-im...

That system works the same way as what they're implementing. Someone reviews the raw image and enters the hash into the system.

>Someone reviews the raw image and enters the hash into the system.

Now that is a job I really would not want to have. Talk about mentally scarring.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#124

Post by kelnos »

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 is that surprising? In the absence of end-to-end encryption (not the default for Messenger, and can only be enabled on a conversation-by-conversation basis) where the keys never leave the endpoints, how do you design a system where literally no employee can access particular bits of data?

I'm sure FB doesn't let just any employee read people's messages, and likely such access is doled out on a case-by-case basis, and isn't a global can-read-anything permission.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#125

Post by zodiac »

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…

You could examine network traffic to confirm that not enough data is sent to reconstitute the picture

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#126

Post by 15155 »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #116
15155 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Facebook obligated to fulfill your desires for privacy by censoring content you have no legal claim to?

I think the claim is that I should have a legal claim to my likeness. Note that I'm not personally convinced of this, I just felt that it was really weak to say that it was fine because the faces aren't an important part of the picture.

> I just felt that it was really weak to say that it was fine because the faces aren't an important part of the picture.

This was very intentional, because it is how courts look at the monetization of this kind of content today.

Your likeness cannot be commercialized without your consent (which is why things like photo/video releases exist) - that being said, the line determining your importance to the photograph's value is up to what a reasonable person (a judge) would believe.

This comparison, while not perfect, was used to preempt an argument from the "$ without permission" angle.

--

As a private company, Facebook is free to add this feature for its users.

As a citizen: I am free to publish my photo containing your likeness elsewhere until legislatively or judicially prohibited. And then I am free to challenge that censorship (as many have on the commercialization issue) on obvious First Amendment grounds.

Aside: I won't get into any European arguments about the "right to be forgotten" - we (USA) don't recognize this as a right.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#127

Post by zodiac »

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…

No, you have to opt in to this feature, hence consenting to let an employee read your message. It does not imply that they can read messages without your consent.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#128

Post by 15155 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #105
15155 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Facebook obligated to fulfill your desires for privacy by censoring content you have no legal claim to?

Consider that this situation could extend or apply to humans, animals, or even plants. Does a rhinocerous have a right to be forgotten? https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/25ll1v/does_a_...

I think this is a separate philosophical debate: operating under current legal frameworks in the United States of America, you do not have the right to prevent me from publishing my photo (with no demonstrable harm being done.)

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#130

Post by pavel_lishin »

kelnos wrote: post #121
valuearb wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a hard problem. Both A & B are bogus reasons. A) Any hash is going to be easily circumvented by anyone who owns Photoshop or any image editor. It's only going to catch those dumb enough not to modify the images, ie. most everyone. Doing the hash server side isn't the big problem though, because if you trust the Facebook App then by default you should trust the Facebook web applications. B) The big problem is…

A) I think we're talking about modification-resistant fingerprinting methods, not just a simple hash of the data. B) That's a support nightmare; it would be nearly trivial to start submitting false reports from a ton of accounts without establishing a pattern so those accounts could easily be ignored. Regardless, how do you prove that you "own an image" (what does that even mean?) and that it was reported as an "inti…

> That's a support nightmare; it would be nearly trivial to start submitting false reports from a ton of accounts without establishing a pattern so those accounts could easily be ignored.

What's stopping me from flooding false reports now? Arguably, only reviewing the image they already have once a hash matches is less work, since they wouldn't have to review all incoming reports, only matched ones.

Post reply on HN