General > General Technical Chat
Apple privacy letter (Law enforcement through your phone)
PlainName:
--- Quote ---On the ever-so-remote chance there is a collision in my lifetime, it will be manually verified by a human anyway.
--- End quote ---
That actually makes it worse. Once people think it's a so remote chance it's never likely to happen, the time when it does happen just can't be real so clearly someone is pulling a fast one and should be nicked anyway. The less chance of it happening, the greater the danger of a miscarriage when it does happen.
And, as the NYTimes article I posted above shows, it doesn't matter if even law enforcement say it's not real kiddie porn and a mistake - the poor person caught out is fucked for life anyway.
Bicurico:
I have a question: if the system only relies on matching a hash database of known pedofile pictures against the pictures on the mobile phone, how is it supposed to detect newly taken pictures? If it doesn't do that, why should it search phones to start with? I would imagine that pedofiles don't install a library of pictures on their phone?
My problem with this technology is that a governmental agency is running software on my device without my consent or without informing me. At my cost (bandwidth, energy, CPU load). I am no pedofile or criminal, so why should I be investigated?
Also, there are so many evident crimes that are not persecuted but could easily be, that I wonder why this matter is consider more urgent.
Finally, let me mention Eppstein: convicted and suicided for sex trafficking of minors, yet no customer has been charged?
rsjsouza:
--- Quote from: Bicurico on August 23, 2022, 12:34:02 pm ---Finally, let me mention Eppstein: convicted and suicides for sex trafficking of minors, yet no customer has been charged?
--- End quote ---
Even before charges are pressed, who are they? Where is the phonebook with the names of the customers?
The elites in power are there to protect only themselves, nothing more. Think of it next time you read about "scandal X" and who is being implied and actually is sentenced at the end of the day.
Red Squirrel:
--- Quote from: magic on August 23, 2022, 04:18:38 am ---
--- Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2022, 03:52:32 am ---They use algorithms which will not experience a hash collision, that way, every single file in the world will have it's own, unique hash.
--- End quote ---
You fell for propaganda.
It is guaranteed that there exist multiple pairs of files of length N+1, where N is the length of the hash, which map to the same hash value.
I don't even need to know anything about the hash to prove it, it's called "pigeonhole principle".
--- End quote ---
Yeah if you take something with say 100,000 characters and try to condense it into something that is say 16 characters, no matter what, you will eventually get a collision. Otherwise, you just invented the Pied Piper of compression algorithms!
As for "the greater good" that is a very very dangerous thing to say and I see it often and it's usually to try to justify stuff like this. The very premise of communism is "for the greater good" and the people are the ones that suffer in the end via loss of rights, freedoms, etc.
SiliconWizard:
Two major issues there IMO:
- Basic one: we may just not want this total surveillance society that is coming up. Period. Already a ton of existing books and movies about that. No need to guess or even to give it a chance: we exactly know what that means and how it ends up. No need to pretend it will be all different, because guess what? It won't be.
- Currently, systems (most being ML-based) are being deployed and get official authorizations while they are still not validated and are known to still be unreliable. (That's true for mass surveillance, autonomous vehicles, and so on.) With sometimes little or unclear recourse.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version