[deleted]
Instagram will blur nudes in messages sent to minors
Submitted 8 months ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
RmDebArc_5@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
Quik@infosec.pub 8 months ago
I would suspect because there is probably space for errors in the detection system
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
And also probably money. Banning users tends to make them not want to keep using your platform.
andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
why the hell don’t they just ban the accounts that try to send nudes to minors?
Because they are sent from minors to minors too? Teens are horny, they copy adults making nudes, sometimes just sharing porn. Recently there were problems with classmates using pornLLM to undress their peers. The abuse problem is harsher, but I feel it’s the minority of nudes received by minors. Honestly, I’d have changed the EULA to forbid it on a public service like Insta, because unlike messengers there is everything to be deanonymized and explicitly targeted by an abuser, including stalking and threats IRL. For Insta, there could be a rule to ban uploading images to Direct of <18 y.o. users, only reposts, meaning they are publically availiable and may get reported by other users and brought down by existing policies without breaking E2EE.
RmDebArc_5@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
Because they are sent from minors to minors too? This could be different depending on the country, but in Germany that would still be illegal. I don’t think a rule like you suggest would ever happen if not forced by law
General_Effort@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Because not everyone lives in Saudi-Arabia or Texas?
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 8 months ago
So you’re saying you want to send nudes to minors?
CluckN@lemmy.world 8 months ago
ان شاء الله نحن العالم
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 8 months ago
If they can detect nudes to blur them out, why not simply not have them sent at all?
Liz@midwest.social 8 months ago
From an ethical standpoint I would say teenagers should be allowed to send each other nudes, but from a corporate liability standpoint I don’t wanna have anything to do with that.
mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 8 months ago
There’s probably a very good reason most Lemmy instances do not bother with NFSW content.
Red_October@lemmy.world 8 months ago
So… they can identify when someone in a conversation is a minor. And they can identify when nudes are being sent. But when these two are combined, they figure just blurring the image is the appropriate solution?
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Perhaps to avoid false positives? I think it’s telling the minor, “hey, this might be a dick. Open only if you know the person”.
EvilBit@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yeah, this is definitely gonna work, as if I haven’t been over 18 years old since I was 12 years old, according to every birthdate question ever.
LostXOR@fedia.io 8 months ago
According to every site ever I was born on Jan 1, 2000.
Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Fake age comparison really making me feel old. Mine was Jan 1,1980
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 8 months ago
That was well below 18 for most of the time I have used the Internet. People born on that day were toddlers when I started to seriously use the Internet.
I could nowadays enter my real DOB and get through all checks but I usually still pick something in the 1970s or 1980s.
BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Only since 2018. Before then I was born on 1/1/1990.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 8 months ago
If the default date is old enough to get past the prompt, I use that one. If it isn’t, I pick a random year that is. I don’t have to lie unless I want a senior discount or something, but I just don’t want to share my birthdate with any random site or service.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Nice. I just scroll randomly a bit. I think it’s funny getting random birthday wishes throughout the year.
lost_faith@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
I do the same, but use the real year. I was born a little before your number
jaagruk@mander.xyz 8 months ago
I am 15 and 24 on Install 😅
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Wouldn’t not permitting minors to use the service at all make this issue moot?
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 8 months ago
But that doesn’t make Meta money.
BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 8 months ago
They’re already lying to get passed the 13 year requirement so I doubt it would make any difference.
arin@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Can the senders be sent to jail as well?
qprimed@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
lots of comments about e2e encryption (or the potential lack thereof)
even if it is e2e encrypted (and I mostly believe it is), once its decrypted on your device (in their app) its in the clear. there is nothing technical preventing the app from then inspecting the data or forwardiing the data to another party for analysis - thats a “terms and conditions” issue.
the article claims they are doing some on-device recognition - thats likely computationally non-trivial, with variable accuracy (false positives/negatives, anyone) and probably at least partially circumventable and perhaps even exploitable (more app surface area to attack).
so, ok… its a lead-in to classifying content on your device. I have no idea what comes next, but I am pretty sure there will be a next and this is why I don’t intentially use any meta products.
Lutra@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Which is a end-game around E2E. Saying ‘the message is encrypted’, but yes, I look at all messages before and/or after violates the expectation of E2E.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 8 months ago
I’ve said this from the start, and people called me names, or “prove it”. Sigh.
If the capability is there, that’s a problem.
vox@sopuli.xyz 8 months ago
why only to minors
clgoh@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
It’s an option for adults.
vox@sopuli.xyz 8 months ago
should be on by default except trusted users
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Great, now our youth will have premature forehead wrinkles from all the squinting they will need to do.
Zink@pawb.social 8 months ago
In case it wasn’t already obvious that they are not encrypting like they said they were…
boatsnhos931@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Did anyone ask for this feature? Are you telling me that when a kid receives a photo blurred out in IG, shim is just going move on and be like ‘gee I’m just going to have to wait’. They have to have a phone number and email address to set up the account right??!!
tostos@lemmy.world 8 months ago
what? is insta allowing nudes Ö
h_ramus@lemm.ee 8 months ago
What about images sent from Japan? Aren’t they all pixelated by default? /s
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Daddy, what’s noodity? Oh! So peepee pictures is nudity? How come I can’t see all the peepee in my phone?
Anyway, to prevent this conversation, maybe labele the images “content not appropriate or not allowed”. It works for mastodon. We literally can’t see a tit or dick unless we double click on the fussy image. So why only minors? Just add a switch for everyone.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 8 months ago
Doesn’t instagram claim messages are e2e encrypted? How can this work without them having access to all messages?
atocci@lemmy.world 8 months ago
On device image recognition?
umbrella@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
doubt.
Star@sopuli.xyz 8 months ago
They aren’t E2EE by default. You have to enable it manually.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 8 months ago
Ah okay, thanks, I don’t use Instagram.
EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 8 months ago
It is all closed-source anyway, so would not count on this “e2e”.
catloaf@lemm.ee 8 months ago
End to end is exactly what it says. It’s decrypted at both ends.
RmDebArc_5@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
dsemy@lemm.ee 8 months ago
E2E encryption means only the sender and recipient should be able to access a message.