Take It Down Act Has Best Of Intentions, Worst Of Mechanisms

Comments

• t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m extremely wary of any law that can be used to censor or otherwise remove material online, but one gripe i have with the Techdirt article is their assertion that hash matching is expensive or difficult.

  Generating a SHA hash of an image when uploaded is very inexpensive in terms of processing, and there’s already going to be a db somewhere that stores the image metadata, so it’s not like putting the hash there is hard. Similarly, a simple No/SQL lookup for a known hash is incredibly simple and non-intensive.

  The real issue is the lack of an appeal mechanism, the lack of penalty for our legal mechanism to ignore false reports (which should probably about spam/ volume rather than single requests), and the lack of definition around what exactly a site must do to show good-faith, reasonable compliance.

  source

  • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Depends 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.

    source

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Why “no longer”?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • ryannathans@aussie.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Change one bit, now we have a brand new hash

    source