←back to thread

276 points leonry | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.447s | source
Show context
Arubis ◴[] No.41889117[source]
Best of luck to the author! My understanding is that anything that makes large file sharing easy and anonymous rapidly gets flooded with CSAM and ends up shuttering themselves for the good of all. Would love to see a non-invasive yet effective way to prevent such an incursion.
replies(10): >>41889269 #>>41889987 #>>41890019 #>>41890075 #>>41890376 #>>41890531 #>>41890775 #>>41892233 #>>41893466 #>>41896754 #
jart ◴[] No.41893466[source]
If governments and big tech want to help, they should upload one of their CSAM detection models to Hugging Face, so system administrators can just block it. Ideally I should be able to run a command `iscsam 123.jpg` and it prints a number like 0.9 to indicate 90% confidence that it is. No one else but them can do it, since there's obviously no legal way to train such a model. Even though we know that governments have already done it. If they won't give service operators the tools to keep abuse off their communications systems, then operators shouldn't be held accountable for what people do with them.
replies(4): >>41893921 #>>41894046 #>>41894311 #>>41898004 #
blackoil ◴[] No.41894046[source]
Perpetrators will keep tweaking image till they get score of 0.1
replies(2): >>41894419 #>>41895566 #
amelius ◴[] No.41894419[source]
How about the government running a service where you can ask them to validate an image?

Trying to tweak an image will not work because you will find the police on your doorstep.

replies(2): >>41894533 #>>41895184 #
jart ◴[] No.41894533[source]
The government doesn't need more dragnet surveillance capabilities than it already has. Also this solution basically asks the service operator to upload illegal content to the government. So there would need to be a strong guarantee they wouldn't use that as proof the service operator has committed a crime. Imagine what they would do to Elon Musk if he did that to run X. The government is also usually incompetent at running reliable services.
replies(1): >>41895790 #
bigfudge ◴[] No.41895790[source]
"The government" in the UK already basically shields big internet operators from legal responsibility from showing teenagers how to tie a ligature. But I wouldn't characterise them as the problem — more public oversight or at least transparency of the behaviour of online operators who run services used by thousands of minors might not be a bad thing. The Musk comment also speaks to a paranoia that just isn't justified by anything that has happened in the past 10 years. The EU is in fact the only governmental organisation doing anything to constrain the power of billionaires to distort and control our public discourse through mass media and social media ownership.
replies(1): >>41901916 #
1. jart ◴[] No.41901916[source]
You mean the government of Prince Andrew?

Yeah I think I understand now why they want the csam so badly.

replies(1): >>41903528 #
2. bigfudge ◴[] No.41903528[source]
I don't understand this comment. Are you implying Prince Andrew was _in_ or part of the UK Government? This would be a weird misunderstanding of our system.

If it's just a general cynical "all gubernment is bad and full of pedos" then I'm not sure what the comment adds to this discussion.