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

151–160 of 184 posts

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#151

Post by LukaAl »

stevenwoo wrote: post #150
LukaAl wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We use obscurity every day and its a completely valid layer of security. Not sure I agree with that, most of the time when we do that is because we don't want to spend the time to have better security. And then we get burned. To your example of the 100$ bill: at my parents home with the car parked in the garage? No problem to do that at all. Out on the street in SF? No. I don't trust my glass enough as a security m…

Facebook is pretty low on companies I would trust, on the other hand we know that NSA employees who have the highest level of security clearance were using their ability to intercept everything to stalk their exes and pass around their exes nude photos according to Snowden. Clearly nobody can be trusted, and as you write, a solution for this must incorporate this fact.

Your comment hit the nail on the head

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#152

Post by gruez »

yawaramin wrote: post #136
valuearb wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a hard problem. Both A & B are bogus reasons. A) Any hash is going to be easily circumvented by anyone who owns Photoshop or any image editor. It's only going to catch those dumb enough not to modify the images, ie. most everyone. Doing the hash server side isn't the big problem though, because if you trust the Facebook App then by default you should trust the Facebook web applications. B) The big problem is…

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 human feelings

im aware that autism exists on a spectrum, and there are high functioning autists, but isn't that at generally true?

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#153

Post by [deleted] »

yawaramin wrote: post #136
valuearb wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a hard problem. Both A & B are bogus reasons. A) Any hash is going to be easily circumvented by anyone who owns Photoshop or any image editor. It's only going to catch those dumb enough not to modify the images, ie. most everyone. Doing the hash server side isn't the big problem though, because if you trust the Facebook App then by default you should trust the Facebook web applications. B) The big problem is…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#154

Post by [deleted] »

leggomylibro wrote: post #146
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…

Which is sort of weird, isn't it? As little as 10-15 years ago there was a huge flourishing ecosystem of IM and chat clients, many of which worked together fairly seamlessly. Individual clients like Pidgin would happily amalgamate several platforms together. Now, at least in terms of usage, it's a blasted hellscape of a one-pony show - what happened?

[deleted]

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#155

Post by yawaramin »

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…

For some people on the spectrum, yes, but you have to realise it's a severely frustrating experience for them as well because they have feelings and want to make human connections too. So it's not helpful to paint them as being oblivious. As I said, it's dehumanising. They deserve dignity and that includes being aware of the language we use about them.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#156

Post by scott_s »

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…

That it's being used as a rhetorical device is immaterial. It's still dehumanizing. And no, people on the autistic spectrum are fully aware of human feelings. But people on the autistic spectrum typically have difficulty reading other people's emotions.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#157

Post by duskwuff »

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

And it's an ugly, demeaning rhetorical device which insults a large group of people, some of whom are users of this site. (Not that it'd be any more acceptable if they weren't present.) Find another way of expressing yourself.

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#158

Post by gruez »

spinco wrote: post #62
leggomylibro wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't understand why anyone uses Facebook. You have a phone, which can communicate with your friends. It's only remotely useful for its near-monopoly on event planning, and imo that's a job for the trustbusters.

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?

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#159

Post by cperciva »

alexggordon wrote: post #24

> To establish which image is of concern, people will be asked to send the image to themselves on Messenger. > Once we receive this notification, a specially trained representative from our Community Operations team reviews and hashes the image, which creates a human-unreadable, numerical fingerprint of it. This clearly implicates that Facebook has, almost without reserve, the ability to read messages from user to us…

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.

No, it implies that some Facebook employees have the ability to review messages which are reported as being abusive. Which is... well, kind of obvious. I mean, what did you think was going to happen when you report a message?

(I suspect that some employees have the ability to look at far more messages than just the ones which are reported, but that is not implied by what they're telling us here.)

Re: Non-Consensual Intimate Image Pilot

#160

Post by recursive »

valuearb wrote: post #120
trjordan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an excellent Twitter thread on why they didn't do this: https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/928740488395608065 The salient bit: > A quick note to everybody who says 'calculate the hash locally': > A) Photo fingerprinting algorithms are usually not included in clients to prevent the development of circumvention techniques. > B) Humans need to review to prevent adversarial reporting. Further down the thread…

It's not a hard problem. Both A & B are bogus reasons. A) Any hash is going to be easily circumvented by anyone who owns Photoshop or any image editor. It's only going to catch those dumb enough not to modify the images, ie. most everyone. Doing the hash server side isn't the big problem though, because if you trust the Facebook App then by default you should trust the Facebook web applications. B) The big problem is…

> It's only going to catch those dumb enough not to modify the images

You seem to be assuming they're using a general purpose hash, rather than one suitable for this purpose. That seems unlikely.

Post reply on HN