41–50 of 108 posts
Someone please post this to the Apple subreddit. I'd love to see hell breaking loose over there.
/r/Apple talks about this topic a lot and, similar to HN, is not happy about it. This drive link brings very little additional light to what was already known and discussed.
Not clicking on that link, don't want my G account go poof
Yeah, seems like anyone clicking through is playing with fire. If the description is correct, posting the link is highly irresponsible. (It seems like the right thing to do would be to serve the content from a server the OP controls themselves.)
Someone please post this to the Apple subreddit. I'd love to see hell breaking loose over there.
It’s certainly not correct.
I've never used modern apple products, but I have a question on how apple cloud works: is it possible that simply sending these in a messenger software to someone who uses apple cloud for automatic backups could get that person flagged as a child pornographist?
The thing that everyone has their panties in a bunch about here and a that like an antivirus scanner, there will be a hash match to child abuse images when you send it. The current practice is that Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc scan the content of your cloud storage. The scenario that you described is a risk and has been since cloud providers started scanning 10-15 years ago. Some large companies scan their file serv…
Both must match to cause a positive.
These images may match the neuralshash, although we have no proof of that at all. They will not also match the visual derivative.
This whole post is based on incomplete information.
"Now you can block people in Drive. To prevent people from sharing unwanted files with you, ..." hahaha. What a coincidence, Google! So you got a hold of the neural hashes, and then used an error function and descent to generate images that match a 'hash'? It feels wrong to call them 'hashes' when they're so weak to pre-image attacks. They're not the same idea as cryptographic hashes at all. Also want to underline ho…
There is a reason cryptographic hashes are distinguished; some applications of hashing are only concerned with minimizing non-malicious collisions.
(Arguably, this is an application where malicious collisions are an issue, but perceptual hashes don't purport to be cryptographic.)
I've never used modern apple products, but I have a question on how apple cloud works: is it possible that simply sending these in a messenger software to someone who uses apple cloud for automatic backups could get that person flagged as a child pornographist?
No, messages and regular file backups aren’t checked for child porn and the online photo library has multiple checks and reviews to prevent any false flagging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dont upload these harmless images to iCloud as Apple will assume its Child Porn (CSAM) This is not true. They may match the hash, but the will not match the visual derivative. The system is not as easily fooled as you think.
> The system is not as easily fooled as you think. I would like to believe that is true, but the negative consequences of even generating a false-positive is enough to not attempt to upload any image.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed that these are reverse engineered from legitimately illegal and problematic porn of known origin. Not sure exactly how you'd go about doing it, but it seems like there might be a process for 'evening out' areas into solid color that maintains the hash? In which case you're running extensive image processing on illegal images and making variations from those very images. More info on how this is done?
Genuine question: If those image were really generated from illegal porn, are those images themselves considered illegal? Or in other words: How much do you have to modify illegal images for them to become legal again? Or do they stay illegal no matter how much you transform them?
Apple said that the risk of collision is "1 in one trillion" which for a hash function would be terrible. We also don't know what the one trillion images they tested against were. If you upload your regular porn to iCloud, it's likely that pornographic images will raise more false positives than say, pictures of sunsets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, seems like anyone clicking through is playing with fire. If the description is correct, posting the link is highly irresponsible. (It seems like the right thing to do would be to serve the content from a server the OP controls themselves.)
I clicked the link. Those images look like modern, colorful and expressionistic art.
Do you have any proof? The database of 200_000 images used by Apple (and others?) is private, and I did not found any trace of the hashes (but I could made a mistake here). So, how do you know that those correspond exactly (or with a certain threshold that has NOT been disclaimed by Apple) to the CSAM DB? Also, NeuralHash has NOT been released by Apple yet ( https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techn…