the world of forensics is something im not familiar with, a couple questions:
- When a hash matches (correctly or incorrectly), how is said image reported? is the matching image passed on to a human to verify or?
- what is the survey size / who(m) are subject to this CSAM net?
ImageNet contains naturally occurring Apple NeuralHash collisions
21–30 of 530 posts
Re: ImageNet contains naturally occurring Apple NeuralHash collisions
#22It doesn’t matter if there are collisions if the two images don’t actually look the same. Do people honestly believe a single CSAM flag from an “innocent” image is going to result in someone going to prison in America? PhotoDNA has existed for over a decade doing the same thing with no instances that I have heard of. If some corrupt government wants to get you they don’t need this. They can just unilaterally say you’…
At least part of the concern is that a hash collision is basically "cause" for Apple to then dump and begin manually (like, with humans) reviewing the contents of your device, all of which will be happening behind the closed doors of a private corporation, outside of any of the usual oversight or innocent-presumption mechanisms that come from it happening through the courts.
That, combined with a (pretty reasonable) expectation that the pool of sus hashes will greatly expand as law enforcement and others begin to understand what a convenient side-step this is for due process.
Re: ImageNet contains naturally occurring Apple NeuralHash collisions
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the two images looked the same, then the expected behaviour is a collision, so if collisions matter at all, it would only be for pictures that look different.
They don’t matter because if two images don’t look the same, but collide - then human processes will absolve you. This isn’t some AI that sends you straight to prison lol
My point is - if you hold that view, then collisions shouldn't matter at all, since if they look the same the correct action is for the person to get thrown in jail.
Re: ImageNet contains naturally occurring Apple NeuralHash collisions
#24Re: ImageNet contains naturally occurring Apple NeuralHash collisions
#25There's been a lot of focus on the likelihood of collisions and whether someone could upload eg; an image with a matching hash to your device to "set you up", etc. But what's still extremely concerning is that there is still no guarantee that the hash list used can't be coopted for another purpose (eg; politically insensitive content).
The OP mentions that two countries have to agree to add a file to the list, but your concern is definitely valid: > Perhaps the most concerning part of the whole scheme is the database itself. Since the original images are (understandably) not available for inspection, it's not obvious how we can trust that a rogue actor (like a foreign government) couldn't add non-CSAM hashes to the list to root out human rights adv…
What if those two countries can be Poland and Hungary? These two countries have been passing lots of laws to ostracize and criminalize pro-LGBT content and are friendly to each other.
Re: ImageNet contains naturally occurring Apple NeuralHash collisions
#26It doesn’t matter if there are collisions if the two images don’t actually look the same. Do people honestly believe a single CSAM flag from an “innocent” image is going to result in someone going to prison in America? PhotoDNA has existed for over a decade doing the same thing with no instances that I have heard of. If some corrupt government wants to get you they don’t need this. They can just unilaterally say you’…
That's not the route in which this will be exploited, and used at scale. A corrupt government has to know they want you "to just get you". Instead they will embed a collision in anti-government meme. That collision will flag you, and now they know you harbor doubts and will come get you. This is why it's a privacy concern. It's no the tech (like you said photo dna's been about forver), it's the scanning of the phone.
What you’re saying is already possible. Where are the examples of this happening? PhotoDNA has existed since 2008.
Re: ImageNet contains naturally occurring Apple NeuralHash collisions
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
The damage is already done by the time it gets to the point of devices being confiscated.
Can you point to a single instance of that happening where it was due to a false positive?
If we reduce it down to "someone being accused of a crime but later being found innocent", then there are several, and when it comes to sex crimes, the accusation alone is enough to ruin someone. People don't care about minor details such as the fact that the person was later found innocent. To them, it's the same as getting off on a technicality.
Re: ImageNet contains naturally occurring Apple NeuralHash collisions
#28Re: ImageNet contains naturally occurring Apple NeuralHash collisions
#29It doesn’t matter if there are collisions if the two images don’t actually look the same. Do people honestly believe a single CSAM flag from an “innocent” image is going to result in someone going to prison in America? PhotoDNA has existed for over a decade doing the same thing with no instances that I have heard of. If some corrupt government wants to get you they don’t need this. They can just unilaterally say you’…
You don’t need to be sent to prison to be irreparably harmed by an accusation.
Ok sure, PhotoDNA has existed since 2008. Where are the instances of people being sent to prison?
Re: ImageNet contains naturally occurring Apple NeuralHash collisions
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point to a single instance of that happening where it was due to a false positive?
If we reduce it down to "someone being accused of a crime but later being found innocent", then there are several, and when it comes to sex crimes, the accusation alone is enough to ruin someone. People don't care about minor details such as the fact that the person was later found innocent. To them, it's the same as getting off on a technicality.
Ok yes - now then, PhotoDNA has existed since 2008. When has what you’ve described ever happened?