Comment on Google’s ‘Secret’ Update Scans All Your Photos

• 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.

  source

  • 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

    source

    • noxypaws@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      That’s a fucking wiretap, yo

      source
• 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.

  source
• 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.

  source

  • Ledericas@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    im not surprised if they are also using an AI, which is very error prone.

    source
• Natanael@infosec.pub ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Apple had it report suspected matches, rather than warning locally

  source

  • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨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.

    source
  • 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

    source

    • Natanael@infosec.pub ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Yeah so here’s the next problem - downscaling attacks exists against those algorithms too.

      scaling-attacks.net

      source

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        And you’ll again inconvenience a human slightly as they look at a pixelated copy of a picture of a cat or some noise.

        No cops are called, no accounts closed

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• 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.

  source