|
|
|
|
|
|
by ac29
1778 days ago
|
|
|
> I can be certain because I have looked at the images, and they are obviously not CSAM. Since the visual derivative is generated from CSAM, any spoof must look like it could be mistaken at a glance for CSAM. Isnt this making the relatively huge assumption that humans and Apple's algorithms have the exact some opinion of what something "looks like"? |
|
|
No. The visual derivative is designed to be matchable by human inspection.
Even if that was not true, which it is, the poster’s claim would still be false, since the poster doesn’t have access to the source CSAM and therefore would not be able to produce the visual derivative regardless of whether I could visually inspect it.
Being able to see by inspection that they images don’t match CSAM is one of two independent ways in which the claim can be shown to be false.