Re:Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database
by 0xffff2 on Friday October 13, 2023 @01:40PM
(#37873302)
I don't have any direct knowledge of this, but I assume the hash collision comes in because Youtube uses some kind of fuzzy hash, so a generic music performance will flag videos using the same piece of music, but not necessarily the same performance.
Re:Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database
by viridian on Friday October 13, 2023 @02:13PM
(#37873670)
I agree that it's not hash collision, but the fingerprinting strategy makes precise language on this topic a bit difficult/tedious.
The CSAM detection isn't proper hash collision either, in so far as I understand it. There's some fuzzy matching formula that generates the fingerprint, it's not simply a byte for byte hash taken of the image, and therein lies the comparison.
The fraud in question is reliant on content ID attempting to fuzzy match audio content, in this specific instance.
Re:Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database
by SAI_Peregrinus on Friday October 13, 2023 @04:43PM
(#37875420)
It's a hash, but it's not a cryptographic hash.
Uploading popular (public domain) music and claiming you own it is just fraud