Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hash collision in Apple NeuralHash model

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 725 posts

Re: Hash collision in Apple NeuralHash model

#501

Post by brandon272 »

treis wrote: post #477
brandon272 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone uploads child porn to iCloud and then shares it with someone else Apple is possessing and distributing child porn. If someone sends CSAM using Federal Express, is FedEx legally liable for "possessing and distributing" that material? Does FedEx need to start opening up packages and scanning hard drives, DVDs, USB sticks, etc. to ensure that they don't contain any CSAM or other illegal data? I really strug…

>If someone sends CSAM using Federal Express, is FedEx legally liable for "possessing and distributing" that material? Yes: https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2014/07/18/fedex-indicted... That was for drugs but conceptually the same for CSAM.

This is not at all conceptually the same.

FedEx was not held liable simply because their service was used to mail illegal drugs. They were held liable because not only did they know about the specific instances in which it was mailed, they allegedly conspired with the shippers to facilitate the mailings. They were knowingly mailing packages to parking lots where drug dealers would wait to pick them up:

> According to the indictment, as early as 2004, FedEx knew that it was delivering drugs to dealers and addicts. FedEx’s couriers in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia expressed safety concerns that were circulated to FedEx Senior management, including that FedEx trucks were stopped on the road by online pharmacy customers demanding packages of pills; that the delivery address was a parking lot, school, or vacant home where several car loads of people were waiting for the FedEx driver to arrive with their drugs; that customers were jumping on the FedEx trucks and demanding online pharmacy packages; and that FedEx drivers were threatened if they insisted on delivering packages to the addresses instead of giving the packages to customers who demanded them.

They had drug addicts literally stopping FedEx trucks on the street to intercept packages from online pharmacies. I don't see how this specific situation is analogous to Apple at all.

The fact remains that FedEx is not scanning hard drives, DVD or other storage devices going through their network and they don't appear to be breaking any laws by not doing that scanning.

Re: Hash collision in Apple NeuralHash model

#502

Post by stetrain »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #454
stetrain wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t ever said this is a good thing and that we should like it. I’m saying if the concern is that a government orders Apple to change it and do something different, then that’s a government problem and maybe we should try fixing that.

> then that’s a government problem and maybe we should try fixing that. But why even give governments hints that people are generally OK with their devices being scanned? We can argue about the technicalities of how abusable or resilient the current implementation is. But we can agree that it's a step towards losing privacy, yes? We didn't have scanning of iDevices before, now we do. Because in my mind it's not a lon…

> We can argue about the technicalities of how abusable or resilient the current implementation is. But we can agree that it's a step towards losing privacy, yes? We didn't have scanning of iDevices before, now we do.

Yes, that was the intention of my original comment. The “slippery slope” is one of principle and precedent, more than this specific technical implementation.

Re: Hash collision in Apple NeuralHash model

#504

Post by mschuster91 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #415
mschuster91 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which Apple have stated that they won't do For your random off-of-the-mill dictatorship, yes. For the US? EU? China? India? No way they can refuse such a request from these markets. And if they could and get away with it, it would be a very worrying situation in itself regarding (democratic) control of government over global mega corporations.

If you believe "the government can compel any company to do anything", then this system is no worse than any other. Although how do you think Linus Torvalds "manged to get away with refusing" adding backdoors? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130919/07485524578/linus...

Simple reason: every line of code in the Linux kernel passes many eyeballs in the open. Even if someone were to compel Linus Torvalds to commit a backdoor and he would comply with that order, people across many jurisdictions would notice this immediately, rendering the backdoor worthless.

Re: Hash collision in Apple NeuralHash model

#505

Post by teitoklien »

bengale wrote: post #499
teitoklien wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s an example of exactly that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28221907

It's not an example though. Putting aside a lack of news report we'll assume it's true, it's got nothing to do with cloud scanning for images. A picture of someones children wouldn't trigger these systems at all.

> its got nothing to do with cloud scanning for images

Everyone else are cloud services scanning for images , cloud or on-device wont change the math, math stays same and here the math makes mistake

> A picture of someone’s children wouldn’t trigger these systems at all

The main post under which we are conversing , is about someone having generated a collision to trigger this system.

Re: Hash collision in Apple NeuralHash model

#508

Post by drvdevd »

hughrr wrote: post #7

That’s end game. Now you can use it for targeted attacks against innocent people. This needs to be shut down and disposed of immediately. There is no other outcome which is socially acceptable for Apple. I feel vindicated now. There are a lot of people saying that I’m insane as I’ve dumped the entire iOS ecosystem in the last week. But Craig was busy steamrolling out the marketing still only a couple of days back abo…

> Within a few years your entire frame buffer and camera will be working against you full time.

This. This is hard enough to explain but with all the PR around whether the feature is good or bad it's even more difficult. Putting this functionality on device is equivalent to modifying the hardware directly, because software is eating the world.

Re: Hash collision in Apple NeuralHash model

#509

Post by dannyw »

tpush wrote: post #239
hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My WhatsApp automatically saves all images to my photo roll. It has to be explicitly turned off. When the default is on, it's enough that the image is received and the victim has CP on their phone. After the initial shock they delete it, but the image has already been sent to Apple, where a reviewer marked it as CP. Since the user already gave them their full address data in order to be able to use the app store, App…

> [...] Appla can automatically send a report to the police. Just to clarify, Apple doesn't report anyone to the police. They report to NCMEC, who presumably contacts law enforcement.

FBI agents work for NCMEC. NCMEC is created by legislation. They ARE law enforcement, disguised as a non-profit.

Re: Hash collision in Apple NeuralHash model

#510

Post by sandworm101 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #434
sandworm101 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Every AV (antivirus) software system Mine doesn't. If Ubuntu or ClamAV is scanning all my photos and reporting the results to Canonical against my will then I will soon be having words with Mr. Linus.

If law enforcement can force software companies to adapt their software to serve law enforcement purposes, why aren’t Ubuntu or ClamAV doing so already? What makes them better at resisting requests from law enforcement than Apple?

>> why aren’t Ubuntu or ClamAV doing so already?

Because if some local police agency like the FBI were altering code on an open source project as large as ubuntu then the world would know about it pretty quickly. The linux community would burn every bridge with Canonical and ubuntu would disappear overnight. The idea of the FBI adding malware to ubuntu unnoticed, malware that openly scans files and reports to remote servers, is the stuff of comic books.

Post reply on HN