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

Tell HN: Dont upload these images to iCloud as Apple will assume its Child Porn

drive.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: Tell HN: Dont upload these images to iCloud as Apple will assume its Child Porn

#91

Post by dragonwriter »

zepto wrote: post #77
dragonwriter wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For what it’s worth, the null hypothesis is that they are just fakes and the commenter is at best trying to illustrate a point. No, that's not “the null hypothesis”. It is a positive claim.

Yes it is the null hypothesis. The poster is making a positive claim without evidence. Indeed the claim is unverifiable. Reasonable priors lead fo a null hypothesis that they are at least simply mistaken. This is without even taking into account other indicators of credibility or authority, or perverse incentives, as priors. This is a rational use of ‘null hypothesis’, but it also matches the scientific use, which wo…

> Yes it is the null hypothesis.

No, its not.

> The poster is making a positive claim without evidence.

True.

That doesn't make the alternate positive claim you have posited into “the null hypothesis”.

A null hypothesis is null. What you are stating may be your prior, but it is not the, or even a valid, null hypothesis.

> This is a rational use of ‘null hypothesis’, but it also matches the scientific use,

“Null hypothesis” is a very specific scientific term of artz it has no other meaning.

And, no, the specific counternarrative presented here does not match the scientific use of “null hypothesis”.

Re: Tell HN: Dont upload these images to iCloud as Apple will assume its Child Porn

#92

Post by zepto »

dragonwriter wrote: post #91
zepto wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is the null hypothesis. The poster is making a positive claim without evidence. Indeed the claim is unverifiable. Reasonable priors lead fo a null hypothesis that they are at least simply mistaken. This is without even taking into account other indicators of credibility or authority, or perverse incentives, as priors. This is a rational use of ‘null hypothesis’, but it also matches the scientific use, which wo…

> Yes it is the null hypothesis. No, its not. > The poster is making a positive claim without evidence. True. That doesn't make the alternate positive claim you have posited into “the null hypothesis”. A null hypothesis is null . What you are stating may be your prior , but it is not the, or even a valid , null hypothesis. > This is a rational use of ‘null hypothesis’, but it also matches the scientific use, “Null hy…

You are still wrong. I don’t make a positive claim.

All images that do not actually trigger detection are fakes in terms of the poster’s claim.

That’s not my prior. It is the null hypothesis for any set of randomly selected images.

The poster’s claim is that the images have a special property. That is the positive claim which they failed to provide evidence for, and is logically false based on their description of the method.

Re: Tell HN: Dont upload these images to iCloud as Apple will assume its Child Porn

#95

Post by fresswolf »

victor871129 wrote: post #2

These harmless generated images have a neuralhash equivalent to those provided in the NCMEC database submitted for testing. I repeat: Dont upload these harmless images to iCloud as Apple will assume its Child Porn (CSAM). Scripts were available on a GitHub repo but were removed because they may cause damage to others.

Instead, send these images to someone you hate over WhatsApp. Chances are that he/she has automatic image saving activated (default setting). New way of SWATting, and completely legal?

Re: Tell HN: Dont upload these images to iCloud as Apple will assume its Child Porn

#97

Post by jhugo »

yreg wrote: post #13
victor871129 wrote: post #2

These harmless generated images have a neuralhash equivalent to those provided in the NCMEC database submitted for testing. I repeat: Dont upload these harmless images to iCloud as Apple will assume its Child Porn (CSAM). Scripts were available on a GitHub repo but were removed because they may cause damage to others.

Is the hash database and the hashing algo public? Or how do you know these match?

Of course the database is public, it's on every iPhone!

Re: Tell HN: Dont upload these images to iCloud as Apple will assume its Child Porn

#98

Post by woofie11 »

panarky wrote: post #74
baybal2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget how it started at Google. Long before they claimed that they scan email for child porn, they made an email scanner to appease China, on a condition they will not target dissidents. I think all remember how it went. Seeing their intimidation work, it only fired up the Chinese government, and led them to only increase their attempts at arm twisting, until Google clumsily pretended to "be tough" while still…

Don't forget how Google admitted their mistake and withdrew from the Chinese market. Even though Google could have made a ton more money by helping China to build the tools of repression. Don't forget that other large US corporations like Microsoft, Apple and Activision do build censorship tools and participate in repressing dissent.

My recollection was that Google was outgunned by Baidu and similar Chinese tools, who were being actively supported by the CCP, while Google was half-tolerate. At the same time, it was losing security, IP, and reputation. There was a nice PR play around it, but I don't think "Google could have made a ton more money by helping China to build the tools of repression." It's better to build those in-house.

Re: Tell HN: Dont upload these images to iCloud as Apple will assume its Child Porn

#99

Post by toxik »

zepto wrote: post #26

As far as I can see the claim made here is not correct. Assuming the images do as claimed match the hash, they must also match the ‘visual derivative’ in order to trigger a match. The system isn’t as easily fooled as is being claimed here.

You have misunderstood. NeuralHash is the visual derivative. Read [1] carefully, it's a very confusing document even for experts - nowhere is there a second step to this process where some second type of "visual derivative" is matched.

The NeuralHash is what matters, solely.

[1] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni...

Post reply on HN