181–184 of 184 posts
If you doubt this will ever happen, look up some images of "1920s beachwear" and ask yourself where the trend is going.
Never in a million years would I trust that kind of data residing on Facebooks servers even fleetingly. Years back, Facebook allowed you to have private profile photos. My then-girlfriend-now-wife has a picture of the two of us as hers which for cultural and religious reasons she had private since we hadn’t decided to tell her parents yet. Facebook decided without telling anyone one day that Facebook photos were now public. She hasn’t spoken to her father since that day. Facebook can and will do whatever they want with the data they have on you. Maybe permissions change on messenger (or there’s a bug) and data from this flow leaks. Maybe a year from now this flow still exists but messager makes all picture uploads a soft delete because they want to keep things as training data. Maybe the upload gets replicated to their CDNs in a way that is discoverable and recoverable. Maybe documentation for this manual process outlives the software, someone finds it, and uploads a picture only to find out they did it in the wrong place that now has no guarantees of even an effort for privacy.
That’s a lot of maybes for something so sensitive. Facebook doesn’t deserve your trust with this kind of data. They should come up with something where the hashing happens locally and the user never has to put faith in them to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - The user uses a JS solution to hash the images on the client, without the image being uploaded You have to trust facebook in either case, each time you do it. Either to handle your nude pics properly or to serve you javascript that does what they claim it does, every single time. On the other hand an open source desktop application only needs to be audited once and then can be validated based on a hash. In browse…
You could examine network traffic to confirm that not enough data is sent to reconstitute the picture
The cheese is full of holes.
The better solution is to have the image hashed and NOT sent to facebook. If the hash matches an existing image [A]. If the hash isn't found [B]. [A]: human can review the image they already have [B]: Facebook waits until someone uploads an image that matches and then reviews the image (as normal) but with a marker alerting the problem. The benefit is that people NOT affected won't have to upload lots of images of th…
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…
Humans already need to review the takedown reports themselves to prevent adversarial reporting!