Well, we can’t trust that corruption would be low enough that this wouldn’t be exploited for other reasons. Child trafficking and exploitation is off the charts. If this did actually help those kids I’d consider supporting it. But I do remember when Apple announced that they would do this that some groups that seemed reputable claimed that it wouldn’t actually help. I don’t know what to think of it.
99.9% of CSAM sharing etc. happens on the dark web forums, not on like, whatsapp or signal. So this legislation wouldn’t help prevent or catch those people
I was interested in Apple’s approach where they would look at checksums of the images to see if they matched checksums of known CSAM. Its trivial to defeat by changing even a single pixel, but it’s the only acceptable way to implement this scanning. Any other method is an overreach and a huge invasion of privacy.
Maybe, depending on the algorithm used. Some are designed to produce the same output given similar inputs.
It’s also easy to abuse systems like that in order to get someone falsely flagged, by generating a file with the same checksum as known CSAM.
It’s also easy for someone in power (or with the right access) to add checksums of anything they don’t like, such as documents associated with opposing political or religious views.
Checksums, on the other hand, are designed to minimize the probability of collisions between similar inputs, without regard for collisions between very different inputs.[8] Instances where bad actors attempt to create or find hash collisions are known as collision attacks.[9]
One-way math doesn’t preclude finding a collision.
(And just to be clear, checksum in the context of this conversation is a generic term that includes cryptographic hashes and perceptual hashes.)
Also, since we’re talking about a list of checksums, an attacker wouldn’t even have to find a collision with a specific one to get someone in trouble. This makes an attack far easier. See also: the birthday problem.
Even this method is overreach: who control the database?
Journalist have a scoop on a US violation of civil rights? Well not if it is important to the CIA who slipped the PDF that was their evidence into the hash pool and had his phone silently rat him out as the one reporting.
This hands ungodly power to those running that database. It’s blind, and it “only flags the bad things”. Which we all agree CSAM is bad, but I can easily ruin someone inconvenient to me if I was in that position by just ensuring some of his personal and unique photo get into the hash. It’s a one way process, so everyone would just believe definitively that this radical MLK guy is a horrible pedo because we got some images off his phone in a diner.
It’s not as easy to defeat as just changing the pixel…
CSAM detection often uses existing features for image matching such as PhotoDNA by Microsoft. Similarly both Facebook and Google also have image matching algorithms and software that is used for CSAM detection which.
These are all hash based image matching tools used for broad feature sets such as reverse image search in bing, and are not defeated by simply changing a pixel. Or even redrawing parts of the whole image itself.
You’re not just throwing an md5 or an sha at an images binary. It’s much more nuanced and complex than that, otherwise hash based image matching would be essentially useless for anything of consequence.
Ohh wait. It is not about the children? Colour me surprised. It is nearly as if it is used as a pretense to strip away our rights 🤔. Just wait for the next big terrorist attack. Then we will get our rights taken away under another pretense 👍
As long as there are powerful people, they will always use their power to life a live of “rules for thee but not for me”.
I’m legitimately surprised at the number of pro-government control comments in this thread, though. We are truly doomed because of the people in the back.
I find it funny that the same people who are against government regulations and giving more power to the state are the ones voting for this. They also seem to be so poorly informed that they think it’ll stop anyone from watching this content lol.
Yeah, well that’s the thing: they like the idea of being against government regulations, but if it is presented to them as a moral issue, they eat it up.
Case in point: a comment in this thread loosely trying to pose PH’s response as being against states’ rights – in this case, due to the states tacitly regulating morality. I’m sure if the issue was e.g. raising state taxes, all of a sudden states’ rights wouldn’t matter.
The right wing learned a while ago that if you can pose anything as morality, there is a whole class of people that will simply lick the boot.
There’s gotta be a solution that leverages their unwavering support for the 4th amendment here. I mean a penis is basically a naturally occurring gun, already. You could almost certainly get a congressman to endorse porn in schools this way.
TBH I kinda agree with the states here… I started watching porn waaayyyy too early and it’s fucking me up… without a doubt… I shouldn’t have seen all the things I looked for and now I gotta put up with it.
But I also agree with PornHubs decision. There is no way to verify age without exposing your identity. There isn’t even a way to trust a 3rd party to verify someone’s age.
There really isn’t a middle ground, the only way to protect kinds (like little me) is to block the porn. But websites go on and offline every few minutes, VPNs and Tor are free and hard to blacklist.
How do we censor internet porn?? ¯\(°_o)/¯
Yeah, something like Adguard family DNS protection or any other family protection DNS service exist which works at the device level or even the network level and is simple to setup on smartphones and latops/computers or even the router.
YouTube won’t even load comments saying restricted mode if I browse through Adguard family protection DNS server.
How about less “control everyone else” and more “control your own damn kids”.
My daughter didn’t get unsupervised access until she proved responsible enough to trust. I want to say around 13.
Just because “I grew up with it unsupervised and it ruined me” doesn’t immediately equal “everyone will have this experience”. Sorry your parents didn’t understand what you were doing. Sorry you saw stuff that bothered you. Don’t punish everyone else for it.
I’m far from a helicopter parent… Instead, my kid has come to me for help in resolving uncomfortable or problematic interactions. We’ve always been clear and honest about why we’ve asked her to avoid certain things. Even when it made us uncomfortable. Especially then.
She’s 20 now. Most cheerful kid I’ve ever met. No idea how that happened directly, but I know I can trust her.
I think the part these points miss is that a lot of kids don’t have good or involved parents, and they shouldn’t have to suffer disproportionately because of it
You are still removing others rights over a hypothetical. It doesn’t miss this, it directly focuses on the point of blame. Punish the parents for exposing their kids. Irresponsibility is not excuse for harm… If a parent leaves hardcore porn laying around for a child to find and harm occurs, don’t punish the uninvolved adult up the street.
Another form of media doesn’t magically absolve parents from parental responsibility. Stop trying to play the “poor adults have no control over their kids!” Card.
The “but think of the children!!!” trope is tired and over abused to remove rights and privacy. Move along.
Healthy parenting would go a long way. See some of the other comments in this thread.
You can also have settings on your local network. If you’re afraid of your kid casually finding something inappropriate, you can set that up stuff locally without involving the government. A determined kid will still find a way to get stuff, so this is more a safeguard against accidental discovery.
Investing in quality education would also benefit everyone.
There isn’t even a way to trust a 3rd party to verify someone’s age.
It depends what you mean by this. If you mean in terms of a way to trust that the third party is doing its job correctly, that’s as simple as using the government itself to do the verification after seeing some proof of age.
If you mean in terms of privacy, you can’t protect the privacy of the fact that someone got verified, but you can protect the privacy of their browsing after the fact. It’s a neat cryptographic trick called blind signatures. The end result is a token that the user holds which they can hand over to websites that tells the website “a trusted third party has verified I’m over 18” but would not have to reveal any more information about them than that. But even if the government was that trusted third party, and they asked the websites to hand over all their logs, the government would still not be able to trace your views back to you, because the token you hold is one they never saw.
This is, in my opinion, still a bad idea. I am in no way advocating for this policy. There’s still the mere fact that you have to go up to someone and basically register yourself as a porn viewer, which is fucked up. Maybe if these tokens were used in other ways, like instead of showing your licence at bars, it could be less bad (though there are other practical reasons I don’t think that would work) because the tokens could be less directly associated with porn. But it’s still an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Not to mention the cost that adding all this would put on the government—or, if they charge for these tokens, the people using it—for what actual gain, exactly?
I’m merely pointing out that from a purely technical perspective, this is quite different from when governments request back doors into chat encryption. This actually can be done. It just shouldn’t, for non-technical reasons.
There is no “middle ground”. The solution is to talk about sex. Early and when it’s prompted aka when children start asking questions.
Stop treating sex as if it’s something holy, special, taboo, and assigning a bunch of value to it. Trying to shield children from it is precisely the wrong thing to do. It’s exactly the same with this fairy tale bullshit about relationships, marriage, and kids. Media makes it seem like the epitome of existence, that there’s nothing greater than finding that one special person, and that there’s only one special person forever and ever, and that it has to be of the opposite sex in order to procreate.
The more you hype something up, and that includes trying to hide it, the more it tantalizes people.
Again, answer questions honestly and truthfully that pertain to sex, attraction, relationships, and so on. Teach how to tell the real from the fake. Normalize knowledge and understanding of intimacy. It’ll make for much healthier children and even healthier adults.
The issue here, I’m sorry to say, is that your parents dropped the ball. They were the ones responsible for your health and the safety of your environment.
Yep, people sadly are bad at extrapolating how restrictions on something they dislike can be cross-applied to limit things they don’t dislike, by others.
Is there a database of “this IP belongs to this state” these companies use? Or do they just use GeoIP stuff? I don’t want my Lemmy server to accidentally violate American laws and get in trouble/banned, so I may need to start doing some IP filtering myself.
Only the biggest websites are even acknowledging this, it’ll get torn down as soon as it actually goes into effect, can’t keep the Mormons away from their porn.
Easiest solution IMO if you’re already using CloudFlare, even the free version: you can filter out certain countries. Otherwise, there’s probably other alternatives, even open source ones. Good terms to search for with your cloud provider or self hosted software may be middlewares, firewalls, serverless, edge functions, etc.
A lot of the stuff you get on nhentai is sometimes questionable. Like 12y/o looking sister questionable.
And what exactly did nhentai figure out that Pornhub didn’t?
I just went to nhentai .to and nhentai .net from TX and was immediately shown naked anime children, so no, I don’t think that site has figured anything out unless I got the domain wrong.
iPhones have been getting thicker year over year since the 11. The 15 is the largest jump in thickness over that period, too. It’s actually pretty reasonable that Apple would seek to return to at least the last prior model’s form factor.
another crappy apple invented useless fashion, that will be spread everywhere, as everyone wants to follow the trends. See: curved display, micro SIM then nano SIM, no headphone jack, etc.
engadget.com
Active