• @eveninghere@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    -414 days ago

    They say they the images are merely matched to pre-determined images found on the web. You’re talking about a different scenario where AI detects inappropriate contents in an image.

    • @vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      514 days ago

      change one pixel and suddenly it doesn’tmatch. Do the comparison based on similarity instead and now you’re back to false positives

      • @eveninghere@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        -2
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        My guess was that this law was going to permit something as simple as pixel matching. Honestly I don’t imagine they can codify in the law something more sophisticated. Companies don’t want false positives either, at the very least due to profits.

    • Inductor
      link
      fedilink
      314 days ago

      Matched using perceptual hash algorithms that have an accuracy between 20% and 40%.

        • Inductor
          link
          fedilink
          413 days ago

          Unfourtunately, I couldn’t find a source stating it would be required. AFAIK it’s been assumed that they would use perceptual hashes, since that’s what various companies have been suggesting/presenting. Like Apple’s NeuralHash, which was reverse engineered. It’s also the only somewhat practical solution, since exact matches would be easily be circumvented by changing one pixel or mirroring the image.

          Patrick Breyer’s page on Chat Control has a lot of general information about the EU’s proposal.

          • @eveninghere@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            13 days ago

            Stupid regulation, honestly. Exact matches are implementable but further than that… Aren’t they basically banning e2ee at this point?

            Now I see why Signal will close in EU.