In bizarre effort to combat revenge porn, Facebook asks users to send them nudes

[shodan]

[QUOTE=Berkin;52872875]Source: [URL="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/11/08/facebook-tests-fighting-revenge-porn-asking-users-file-nude-photos-first/843364001/"]https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/11/08/facebook-tests-fighting-revenge-porn-asking-users-file-nude-photos-first/843364001/[/URL][/QUOTE]

Why not let people download a program to generate image hashes of images they don't want to be uploaded to the platform?

For example: [url]https://github.com/jenssegers/imagehash[/url]

[coup]

Technically they could design it so the original image is never hosted on their platform by converting the image into something only neural networks could properly understand... but I don't think that's what is happening here considering you send it with messenger lol

[1/4 Life]

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52873531]Technically they could design it so the original image is never hosted on their platform by converting the image into something only neural networks could properly understand... but I don't think that's what is happening here considering you send it with messenger lol[/QUOTE]

Messenger isn't even e2e. You could easily get these photos in transit.

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=Robber;52872980]Unless there are some hash algorithms specifically for lossy images hashes wouldn't work. If you change even one pixel by one bit the hash must change.[/QUOTE]

Microsoft and a bunch of others developed something that circumvents exactly this to catch child pornography without storing the actual images.

[Geel]

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52873694]Messenger isn't even e2e. You could easily get these photos in transit.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying Messenger doesn't use HTTPS? Who is the other "end" if not Facebook?

[Gook Nukem]

Reposting from the other thread about this:

[t]http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/c_limit,w_680/fl_lossy,pg_1,q_auto/wymtunkbwmiascork29s.jpg[/t]

Reminder that Facebook does not value your privacy, and they sell your personal information to advertisers as much as they possibly can, as often as they possibly can.

Yes that is a real conversation between the Zucker and a friend of his back when Facebook first started. And I highly doubt his attitude has one iota changed as the amount of personal information at his fingertips has exponentially increased.

Do not trust Facebook, or any of their ridiculous bullshit such as "revenge porn protection" - you and I know that Mark Zuckerberg will be personally masturbating to your nudes if you willingly send them to his website for "safekeeping".

[Geel]

[QUOTE=Quark:;52873900]Reposting from the other thread about this:

[t]http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/c_limit,w_680/fl_lossy,pg_1,q_auto/wymtunkbwmiascork29s.jpg[/t]

Reminder that Facebook does not value your privacy, and they sell your personal information to advertisers as much as they possibly can, as often as they possibly can.

Yes that is a real conversation between the Zucker and a friend of his back when Facebook first started. And I highly doubt his attitude has one iota changed as the amount of personal information at his fingertips has exponentially increased.

Do not trust Facebook, or any of their ridiculous bullshit such as "revenge porn protection" - you and I know that Mark Zuckerberg will be personally masturbating to your nudes if you willingly send them to his website for "safekeeping".[/QUOTE]

Do you actually think they sell your data to advertisers?

Do you understand how Facebook makes revenue?

[DoctorSalt]

It is true that any employee can technically access anyone's information, but if they are caught doing it for any kind of poor reason they are instantly fired with no questions asked.

[joshthesmith]

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;52874311]It is true that any employee can technically access anyone's information, but if they are caught doing it for any kind of poor reason they are instantly fired with no questions asked.[/QUOTE]

Hell if some guy wants to jack off to me, I must be good looking. Even better if it's a woman :v:

This is a dumb idea tho to stay on topic

[Str4fe]

Does this work for rare Pepes?

[Phygon]

[QUOTE=Robber;52872980]Unless there are some hash algorithms specifically for lossy images hashes wouldn't work. If you change even one pixel by one bit the hash must change.[/QUOTE]

There are, you downscale the image to a pre-defined resolution with a pre-defined somewhat limited color pallate and then you hash that.
Then, you run that hash against the images that everyone who's their friend/friend of a friend posts. Easy.

[Patrick]

[QUOTE=tratzzz;52872948]Haven't heard of big leaks from Facebook though? It might work, even as dumb as it sounds.

It'd be a bit better when you could simply send them a hash or a censored proof of your nude to ban similar pics?[/QUOTE]

Im certain this is will just match photos uploaded with photos in the database and if they are similar enough it wont post the picture and will report it to facebook automatically

[mastersrp]

[QUOTE=phygon;52875402]There are, you downscale the image to a pre-defined resolution with a pre-defined somewhat limited color pallate and then you hash that.
Then, you run that hash against the images that everyone who's their friend/friend of a friend posts. Easy.[/QUOTE]

Your results will then also be completely useless, due to lack of accuracy, but you could do that, yes.

[helifreak]

[QUOTE=mastersrp;52876061]Your results will then also be completely useless, due to lack of accuracy, but you could do that, yes.[/QUOTE]

It's actually still pretty accurate. My wallpaper changer with feature creep 2.0™ features (amongst other things, no hat dlc sadly) a wallpaper library that can check for duplicates.

You may be surprised to hear that scaling images down and converting to greyscale is exactly how it does it. Still detects them even after resizing, hue changes, and aspect ratio changes. Also handles cropping to some degree but nothing is perfect.

[Nebukadnezzer]

i hope facebook dies soon

[ransom]

This system is likely using a sort of fuzzy hashing algorithm. I guarantee Facebook is not storing these images permanently. All large image/video storage services (Dropbox, Google Drive, etc) implement this technology, whether they say it or not. This is how Dropbox was able to discretely detect and report people who are storing child pornography without keeping an illegal cache of child porn on their servers. PhotoDNA by Microsoft is an example of such a service. Rather than hashing on a per-pixel basis, it generates a hash based on chunks of an image. Generating multiple hashes for rotated or tweaked images becomes trivial at this point.

Facebook doesn't want your nudes, they want to survive under growing pressure by media to protect users and maintain relevance and positive growth.

I don't post often, but I really think it's worth combatting fear-mongering for something that truly could be beneficial for people who are potentially having their lives ruined by revenge porn.

[mastersrp]

[QUOTE=helifreak;52876213]It's actually still pretty accurate. My wallpaper changer with feature creep 2.0™ features (amongst other things, no hat dlc sadly) a wallpaper library that can check for duplicates.

You may be surprised to hear that scaling images down and converting to greyscale is exactly how it does it. Still detects them even after resizing, hue changes, and aspect ratio changes. Also handles cropping to some degree but nothing is perfect.[/QUOTE]

I'm not surprised when it comes to images that are different enough, like wallpapers might be, but the problem happens when the images will all end up looking seemingly like eachother, at least to some extend. That's when the accuracy problem happens.

[editline]11th November 2017[/editline]

What I'm talking about isn't that it won't match, it's that it'll match way too much.

[Phygon]

[QUOTE=mastersrp;52876061]Your results will then also be completely useless, due to lack of accuracy, but you could do that, yes.[/QUOTE]

Actually, not really. It's pretty accurate for different resolutions and qualities as long as you crunch down the color to something with really low precision.

[Kalimando]

Given that the internet is the single greatest source of nude photography ever created, And that nude photos are strictly prohibited on FB, wouldn't training an AI to determine if any photograph contains genitalia be a broader solution?

[Ridge]

[QUOTE=Flameon;52872999]the policy is a little odd but it makes sense if you think about it[/QUOTE]

Does it, though? If the uploader wants to bypass the filter, all they have to do is make some minor edit of the photo, like cropping off a bit or putting an instagram filter on it.

[hexpunK]

[QUOTE=Ridge;52881178]Does it, though? If the uploader wants to bypass the filter, all they have to do is make some minor edit of the photo, like cropping off a bit or putting an instagram filter on it.[/QUOTE]

It's really not out of the realm of possibility for fuzzy algorithms to be able to deal with that. Facebook shouldn't be storing the images themselves as that'd be insanity. They'd be storing hashes of the images. The hashes aren't going to be generated on a per-pixel basis as that's also fucking lunacy. They'd be generated using a generalised or more abstract representation of the image (averaging out chunks of the image, etc.).

Altering the colours slightly or changing a few pixels shouldn't throw such an algorithm off if it's done correctly. Facebook employs a shitload of genuinely talented engineers for their backend stuff, this kind of thing is probably fairly well thought out.