It is like letting a policeman into your house to make sure you are not committing crimes. The methods (installing an AI module behind your defenses against criminal hackers that is programmed to betray you) are too invasive.
replyReal world analogies to tech usually don't work(I would download a car), but I think in this case it would be more like you hire a servant, and that servant helps you out with whatever you ask, but if your servant sees something absolutely disgusting and illegal, they call the police and tattle on you.
replyBecause at some point someone in power puts the JD Vance meme that was going around in as a hash.
replyOr leaks related to national security failures/coverups or exposing corruption. Or copyright infringement.
replySame tool is very handy if you hypothetically wanted to control spread of anything else, like anti ice apps for instance.
replyAlso hash matching is so easily bypassed you can be sure they really want to add some "AI" detector as well
How is scanning hashes of photos you upload to your cloud account going to give anyone the ability to stop you from downloading an app?
reply>Same tool is very handy if you hypothetically wanted to control spread of anything else, like anti ice apps for instance.
replyThat's a weak argument because they can already do that today with google's play protect and apple's app notarization.
They already have one way of doing it therefore we should make a legal carve out to give them additional ways of doing it even though we don't want them to be able to in the first place.
replyThat doesn't make sense. It's a defeatist attitude that serves only to advantage the opponent.
> matching images against known hashes
replyThat's not how that works, last I checked. AIUI it's much more fuzzy. Has to be, being scum doesn't automatically make you an idiot, and a single bit change would make plain old hashes entirely useless.
Insert your favourite dystopia to see where that ends up and how companies benefit from it.
Hash functions don't need to be bit-level sensitive. See: "perceptual hashing"
replyI'd give it that matching hashes is probably the least worse way of going about this
replyExcept for that pesky detail of hash collisions