Doing the scanning on-device doesn’t mean that the findings cannot be reported further. I don’t want others going thru my private stuff without asking - not even machine learning.
Comment on Google’s ‘Secret’ Update Scans All Your Photos
Armand1@lemmy.world 4 days ago
For people who have not read the article:
Forbes states that there is no indication that this app can or will “phone home”.
It’s stated use is for other apps to scan an image they have access to find out what kind of thing it is (known as "classification"). For example, to find out if the picture you’ve been sent is a dick-pick so the app can blur it.
My understanding is that, if this is implemented correctly (a big ‘if’) this can be completely safe.
Apps requesting classification could be limited to only classifying files that they already have access to. Remember that android has a concept of “scoped storage” nowadays that let you restrict folder access. If this is the case, we’ll it’s no less safe than not having SafetyCore at all. It just saves you space as companies like Signal, WhatsApp etc. no longer need to train and ship their own machine learning models inside their apps, as it becomes a common library / API any app can use.
It could, of course, if implemented incorrectly, allow apps to snoop without asking for file access. I don’t know enough to say.
Besides, you think that Google isn’t already scanning for things like CSAM? It’s been confirmed to be done on platforms like Google Photos well before SafetyCore was introduced, though I’ve not seen anything about it being done on devices yet (correct me if I’m wrong).
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 4 days ago
lepinkainen@lemmy.world 4 days ago
This is EXACTLY what Apple tried to do with their on-device CSAM detection, it had a ridiculous amount of safeties to protect people’s privacy and still it got shouted down
I’m interested in seeing what happens when Holy Google, for which most nerds have a blind spot, does the exact same thing
noxypaws@pawb.social 4 days ago
it had a ridiculous amount of safeties to protect people’s privacy
The hell it did, that shit was gonna snitch on its users to law enforcement.
lepinkainen@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Nope.
A human checker would get a reduced quality copy after multiple CSAM matches. No police was to be called if the human checker didn’t verify a positive match
Your idea of flooding someone with fake matches that are actually cat pics wouldn’t have worked
noxypaws@pawb.social 3 days ago
That’s a fucking wiretap, yo
lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
I have 5 kids. I’m almost certain my photo library of 15 years has a few completely innocent pictures where a naked infant/toddler might be present. I do not have the time to search 10,000+ pics for material that could be taken completely out of context and reported to authorities without my knowledge.
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 days ago
Google did end up doing exactly that, and what happened was, predictably, people were falsely accused of child abuse and CSAM.
Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 days ago
im not surprised if they are also using an AI, which is very error prone.
Natanael@infosec.pub 4 days ago
Apple had it report suspected matches, rather than warning locally
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
The official reason they dropped it is because there were security concerns. The more likely reason was the massive outcry that occurs when Apple does these questionable things. Crickets when it’s Google.
The feature was re-added as a child safety feature called “Comminication Saftey” that is optional on a child accounts that will automatically block nudity sent to children.
lepinkainen@lemmy.world 3 days ago
They were not “suspected” they had to be matches to actual CSAM.
And after that a reduced quality copy was shown to an actual human, not an AI like in Googles case.
So the false positive would slightly inconvenience a human checker for 15 seconds, not get you Swatted or your account closed
Natanael@infosec.pub 3 days ago
Yeah so here’s the next problem - downscaling attacks exists against those algorithms too.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Overall, I think this needs to be done by a neutral 3rd party. I just have no idea how such a 3rd party could stay neutral. Some with social media content moderation.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Issue is, a certain cult (christian dominionists), with the help of many billionaires (including Muskrat) have installed a fucking dictator in the USA, who are doing their vow to “save every soul on Earth from hell”. If you get a porn ban, it’ll phone not only home, but directly to the FBI’s new “moral police” unit.
Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 days ago
the police of vice and virtue, just like SA has.
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 days ago
That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t. If it were open source, we could verify it. As is, it should not be trusted.