> *it's trivial even for non-techies to circumvent hash-based detection
I was under the impression that PhotoDNA was more than simple hashing - that it used an algorithm like Google's "similar images"
I was under the impression that PhotoDNA was more than simple hashing - that it used an algorithm like Google's "similar images"
I don't think this measure is effective (it's trivial even for non-techies to circumvent hash-based detection) nor proportional to the likely incidence/impact of this crime. While I cannot speak to what their legal obligations are, I don't think we should encourage invasion of privacy for no particularly good reason. As such, I strongly object to the notion they have a moral obligation to commit this particular harm. Facetiously claiming that doing so somehow protects children is just a joke in particularly bad taste.