This kind of thing isn’t even unusual either. I know my parents have pictures of myself and my siblings playing in the bath (obviously taken on film rather than digital photography) and I know friends have pictures of their kids too.
While the difference between innocent images and something explicit easy for a human to identify, I’m not sure I’d trust AI to understand that nuance.
That you even have to consider sexual interpretations of your BABY'S GENITALS is an affront to me. I have pictures of my baby completely naked, because it is, and I stress this, A BABY. They play naked all the time, it's completely normal.
I say let children be free, no court is going to indict you because you have baby pictures on your phone.
Maybe, maybe not. Bad luck is possible with anything involving police, prosecutors, judges, and juries. Need justification for that point of view? Just look at the number of people who were convicted and spent time in jail who truly were innocent. That doesn't even touch on the possible repercussions that can happen from just being questioned/arrested and later let go.
As that seems unlikely, I guess CSAM just uses a constantly updated database of known hashes for matching.
In this case it’s not AI that’s understanding the nuance, it’s authorities that identify the exact pictures they want to track and then this tool lets them identify what phones/accounts have that photo (or presumably took it). If ‘AI’ is used here it is to detect if one photo contains all/part of another photo, rather than to determine if the photo is abusive or not.
Although there is a legitimate slippery slope argument to be had here.
I have to assume humans are involved at some point before journalists are notified. The false-positive will be cleared up and no reputations sullied (except perhaps the reputation of using AI to scan for digital fingerprints).
This is dangerously naive. The US justice system alone will hound people on goosed up charges and try to get people to accept a plea deal and write a bogus confession. Parallel construction. Additionally if you can't audit the database (I'd bet very few people can, including your senator) how do you know a hash of something not CP wasn't inserted into the database. This entire system screams ready for govt overreach. It's worse than normal since there'll be no public evidence when it's abused.
Documents could also be engineered to trigger false positives, making it difficult or impossible for a corporate whistleblower to photograph incriminating evidence to deliver to the authorities.
So, if the rumors are true and every iPhone will check every photo against an opaque database of perceptual fingerprints, what safeguards exist (beyond "trust us" from the database keepers) to prevent abuse of the feature to suppress evidence and control the flow of information, and which organizations or governments will have control over the contents of the database? As always, who watches the watchers?
I recall a story several years ago where someone was getting the film developed at a local drugstore, and the employee reported them for CP because of bath photos. This was definitely a thing before computers with normal every day humans.
Just playing devil's advocate, my gut (and I think even considered) reaction is in alignment with surely just about the whole tech industry: it's over-reach (if they're not public images).
After all the courts he ended up with 13 years in prison, where he is likely going to die.
Your intent when producing the image was irrelevant.
As mentioned in the twitter thread, how does image hashing & recognition tools such as PhotoDNA handle adversarial attacks?[2][3]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27959755
[2] https://news.mit.edu/2019/why-did-my-classifier-mistake-turt...
[3] https://towardsdatascience.com/black-box-attacks-on-perceptu...