Why “no longer”?
Comment on Take It Down Act Has Best Of Intentions, Worst Of Mechanisms
jarfil@beehaw.org 1 day agoDepends on “how identical” is “identical”.
The SHA hash of a file, is easy to calculate, but pretty much useless at detecting similar images; change a single bit, and the SHA hash changes.
In order to detect similar content, you need perceptual hashes, which are no longer that easy to calculate.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
because of the “perceptual” part.
A normal hash has the property that it produces wildly different hashes for even the tiniest of changes in the file.
Perceptual hashing flips that requirement on its head, and therefore makes finding a suitable hash function much harder.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Oh, the way I read it it seemed like they were saying perceptual hashes used to be easier to calculate
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 day ago
jarfil@beehaw.org 23 hours ago
The problem lies in what is a “depiction”. The way it is written, even cropped, rotated, blurred, or in any other way processed files of that “depiction”, would fall under the “identical” part.
Since perceptual hashing does exist, there are open source libraries to run it, and even Beehaw runs an AI based image filter, the “reasonable effort” is arguably to use all those tools as the bare minimum. Even if they sometimes (or always) fail at removing all instances of a depiction.
But ultimately, deciding whether a service has applied all “reasonable efforts” to remove “identical copies” of a “depiction”, will fall on the shoulders of a judge… and even starting to go there, can bankrupt most sites.