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

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#161

Post by Gaelan »

gruez wrote: post #158
spinco wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to a phone (SMS) and other messaging apps (whatsapp, email, signal), fb messenger has two big benefits for me: * Cross platform: I don't have to type on a tiny screen when I'm in front of a computer, and won't lose my account or my messages if I lose my phone or phone number. * Discoverability: most people who I meet are on it, so I can reach out to people I meet at events as well as friends of friends. I do…

>Cross platform: I don't have to type on a tiny screen when I'm in front of a computer, and won't lose my account or my messages if I lose my phone or phone number. email isn't cross platform? >Discoverability: most people who I meet are on it, so I can reach out to people I meet at events as well as friends of friends. doesn't everyone have an email address?

You can’t just type someone’s name into the To field of an email.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#162

Post by borplk »

Lots of people caught up here about nitty gritty details of hash type client side vs server side and so on. The elephant in the room in my view is the fact that the person can just upload the images on another image/file sharing platform.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#163

Post by mavhc »

xanderstrike wrote: post #81
danbruc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, all data Facebook has on you that you uploaded, if other people upload your address, that's apparently their data.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#164

Post by Mithaldu »

gruez wrote: post #152
yawaramin wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, please don't use phrasing like '... infected with ... autism'. First of all, autism isn't an infection, and second it dehumanises people with autism when you associate them with negative connotations like not being aware of human feelings and 'infecting' others. They are people too, don't dump on them.

>First of all, autism isn't an infection it's being used as a rhetorical device. the implication here is that although autism isn't actually being spread per se, the environment at facebook (caused by profit motive or otherwise) causes "tone death and oblivious to basic human behavior and feelings". >second it dehumanises people with autism when you associate them with negative connotations like not being aware of hu…

Pretend he wrote instead: "... infected with ... ism ..."

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#165

Post by ben_w »

reificator wrote: post #134
JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Isn't that one of the highest turnover jobs that exists? It's really hard to keep people coming into work when their work is to review twisted content all day.

I have a hypothesis that undiscovered child fanciers will seek jobs like this.

I also hypothesise (on the basis of news articles saying how low the reoffending rates are compared to other categories of offender) that the distribution of sadistic narcissism is the same or similar for them as it is everyone else, so when they sit down at the office desk and see a screaming child, most of them will hate themselves if they didn’t already.

I’m not so sure about the second hypothesis though. It’s based on what newspapers say, and I’ve learned to distrust them.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#166

Post by Y_Y »

15155 wrote: post #126
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

But Facebook operates in Europe with photos of EU citizens. So regardless of where the photographer is from, the photographee should be able to assert that right.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#167

Post by lozenge »

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.

And when the attacker Googles "how to upload images banned by Facebook" won't they find that article from that one vengeful ex who understood the technology well enough to build a tool?

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#168

Post by Freak_NL »

the8472 wrote: post #99
15155 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would an open source fingerprinting algorithm work in this case? There would be a browser extension to "refingerprint" images within 24 hours of release.

Make the algorithms public, let them be broken, refine them etc. until the margin between identification and refingerprinting becomes so small that refingerprinting involves such significant changes that we are reasonably confident that we are no longer dealing with theseus' ship. That's how we got good crypto. By not keeping it proprietary. And a side benefit that we would get some amazingly alteration-resistant per…

It would be interesting to see what people come up with, but I doubt any algorithm can stop someone dedicated to figure out a way to defeat it.

Having the algorithm open for public review will lead to better algorithms, but allow for direct feedback if you are attempting to circumvent it; whilst keeping it proprietary will prevent direct feedback, but might keep the algorithm less clever than it could be.

If Facebook is using just PhotoDNA, defeating it should be trivial¹:

> […] It works by converting the image to black and white, re-sizing it, breaking it into a grid, and looking at intensity gradients or edges […]

That's fairly generic, but effective enough for resizing, colour adjustments, minor changes, etc., but not good enough for porn and an adversary willing to do some experimenting with the photo.

If I were to guess at how Facebook uses this, I would expect that they use a preprocessing routine that strips out anything that doesn't resemble a nude or semi-nude person, to prevent alterations to the person's surroundings from changing the hash — which is what you would do if you wanted to bypass the filter whilst keeping the essence of the picture intact. Keeping that fact hidden would be integral to their strategy I suppose.

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

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#170

Post by nl »

gruez wrote: post #152
yawaramin wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, please don't use phrasing like '... infected with ... autism'. First of all, autism isn't an infection, and second it dehumanises people with autism when you associate them with negative connotations like not being aware of human feelings and 'infecting' others. They are people too, don't dump on them.

>First of all, autism isn't an infection it's being used as a rhetorical device. the implication here is that although autism isn't actually being spread per se, the environment at facebook (caused by profit motive or otherwise) causes "tone death and oblivious to basic human behavior and feelings". >second it dehumanises people with autism when you associate them with negative connotations like not being aware of hu…

It's being used as a rhetorical device.

That's actually worse. It's like when "that's gay" used to be used as an insult.

To quote one much more eloquent than me:

Gay is synonymous with the lesser

Post reply on HN