261–270 of 407 posts
The advertisers can always protect that system with some DRM to get the mighty DMCA on their side. That way they don't need to build a robust solution and can still wipe their hands clean if they loose it all to a 12 year old script kiddie.
I find their claim that the picture will be deleted from their servers at odds with their claim that they will make sure that photo is unique. I suspect that what they're not saying is that they will keep some signature/hash/data about the photo, which I'm sure they will use for much more than just verifying uniqueness.
Yep, that's in the article. They say they'll hash it and delete it (the photo). They don't claim they'll delete the hash. Having the hash is enough to check for uniqueness. Although it's sort of an over-strict definition of uniqueness. Example: I change one pixel → That produces a drastically different hash → That makes the almost-identical photo seem unique. I'd be surprised if they weren't extracting other info fro…
If they're hashing the raw bytes, sure. If they're hashing a representation of the face that encodes meaning (like the relative locations of facial features), then changing one pixel is unlikely to affect that.
Instagram did this same bullshit to me when I signed up for an account to to follow some photographers. 'Please provide a clear photo of yourself holding your government issued ID, and a piece of paper with the following code handwritten on it'. No, fuck that for a joke. There's this growing trend of everyone wanting your photo and some ID, and then you have no way to verify that information is being kept securely or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wording like this is really tricky (intentionally so!), it exploits our naive notion of digital information as files. One aspect is the machine learning you mention but basically they can also create a new "file" from your image with metadata about your image. Metadata rich enough to render the original image unnecessary. There is no way out of this relatiohship with FB, however they formulate words to comfort you, t…
The more data they keep about these images that they are promising to delete, the more they would make themselves liable to be sued for privacy violation (especially in the EU). It is a blurred line, but one that most rational companies (=not Uber) would prefer to avoid in the first place by only storing data that is necessary for their main functionality.
Instagram did this same bullshit to me when I signed up for an account to to follow some photographers. 'Please provide a clear photo of yourself holding your government issued ID, and a piece of paper with the following code handwritten on it'. No, fuck that for a joke. There's this growing trend of everyone wanting your photo and some ID, and then you have no way to verify that information is being kept securely or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or indeed care about the law enough to bother before they're fined for doing it. After all you'll need to prove they didn't delete the data first!
The GDPR penalties can reach 4% global (i.e. sum all related companies) annual turnover per infraction . If anyone ever found out Facebook had a widespread violation, Facebook would be likely be dissolved.
I used to think richard stallman was just a paranoid lunatic... Well, the more time goes by, the more i think he was just 100% right. It's time to be much much more careful and radical with the path technology is taking us. It's time we all invest a bit of our time to provide real open and benevolent alternatives to facebook, google, amazon, and all the rest, because they're steering internet toward an orwelian night…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. This is the absolute wrong direction and would likely help push for a Government Internet ID. This would complete destroy online anonymity.
The US isn't the world. "Government Internet IDs" already exist, and there is nothing inherent in them existing that eliminates online anonymity, it just removes it on Facebook (which is exactly the point).
I used to think richard stallman was just a paranoid lunatic... Well, the more time goes by, the more i think he was just 100% right. It's time to be much much more careful and radical with the path technology is taking us. It's time we all invest a bit of our time to provide real open and benevolent alternatives to facebook, google, amazon, and all the rest, because they're steering internet toward an orwelian night…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the image is hashed before it reaches FB servers, then it gives every user the power and impunity to attempt to censor via a Content-ID like approach. Another commenter makes a good point that you could still have a human verify the first time a provided hash matches an image. In the current setup, there is a human that verifies the image to be hashed is a nude photo instead of the McDonald's profile picture. In…
The main obstacle that I can think of is: where does that hashing get done? Is it a feature that can efficiently be part of the phone app? Keeping in mind that this is a feature that would only be used by a very, very small part of the general userbase. Let's assume that it is possible, the other issue that might come up is that the system is still suspect to a sort of denial of service attack, in which a group (for…
The current implementation can be attacked by uploading thousands of legitimate images delaying takedown requests - therefore any images that should be taken down will stay up longer.
I'll agree that whatever approach FB is doing to hash the photos may not work on a phone for technical reasons, but given FB's resources I'm not sure how far that argument really goes. But consider this - if you truly, deeply cared about user safety and privacy, would you implement this feature the same way?