Just because something has the same hash as the "target" picture, in no way means that that thing is the "target". Hashes are not exclusive to the file they are on. By the very nature of a hash function, it is impossible to have one file = one hash.
Even if we get to that point, though, there will always be ways around a hash. Always. It's the nature of the beast with digital data. When you try to block certain combinations of ones and zeroes, there's always other ways to put those ones and zeroes together to get the same result.
Even though that is correct, the problem with hashes of any sort is that they are not exclusive to one single file. Multiple files have the same hash no matter what hash function you use. There is also always a way to change that hash, so you flag a "kiddie porn picture" and you'll get grandma's picture of dinner last night and the "kiddie porn picture" you were targeting in the first place has a different hash because the people who made the pic figured out they were on a hash list...
Only thing I can see with this, is that you can't get rid of pedophilia... It's something in the brain, we can't get rid of it completely, so the "consumers" you are talking about will never go away. You get rid of one, another is born to take their place. That's the problem with that solution.
I read, on another blog, that the people who googled these things were being spied upon by their ex-employers. Those employers are the ones who turned them in, which then got the visit that they received. It wasn't the government spying on these people. I don't doubt that the government spies on us, they just weren't the reason this couple got a visit...
The issue I see with this post is this sentence here: The court struck down several parts of Arizona's law but nonetheless left in place a core provision allowing police officers to check the immigration status of people in the state at specific times. The court did not "leave in place" the provision, they ruled they could not rule on the provision until it was implemented. They also ruled that when implemented it could then be challenged. Further, they said that how the provision is implemented would impact the court's ruling on it's constitutionality. They further warned that if the implementation prolonged (and didn't say how long prolonged is...) the detention of an individual that that would be grounds to strike down this provision. In my opinion it is good to get all the facts before discussing things and this is an important fact.
I say it's only a matter of time till the "terroists" get into this program so they don't have to go through all the same stuff us "normal" citizens do. They already know how to get past the stuff we go though anyway...
What about if you buy a game and then find out later that buried deep in the game is an advert? You won't be able to tell just from the packaging that there's advertisements in the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because something has the same hash as the "target" picture, in no way means that that thing is the "target". Hashes are not exclusive to the file they are on. By the very nature of a hash function, it is impossible to have one file = one hash.
Even if we get to that point, though, there will always be ways around a hash. Always. It's the nature of the beast with digital data. When you try to block certain combinations of ones and zeroes, there's always other ways to put those ones and zeroes together to get the same result.
Even though that is correct, the problem with hashes of any sort is that they are not exclusive to one single file. Multiple files have the same hash no matter what hash function you use. There is also always a way to change that hash, so you flag a "kiddie porn picture" and you'll get grandma's picture of dinner last night and the "kiddie porn picture" you were targeting in the first place has a different hash because the people who made the pic figured out they were on a hash list...
Only thing I can see with this, is that you can't get rid of pedophilia... It's something in the brain, we can't get rid of it completely, so the "consumers" you are talking about will never go away. You get rid of one, another is born to take their place. That's the problem with that solution.
I read, on another blog, that the people who googled these things were being spied upon by their ex-employers. Those employers are the ones who turned them in, which then got the visit that they received. It wasn't the government spying on these people. I don't doubt that the government spies on us, they just weren't the reason this couple got a visit...
The issue I see with this post is this sentence here: The court struck down several parts of Arizona's law but nonetheless left in place a core provision allowing police officers to check the immigration status of people in the state at specific times. The court did not "leave in place" the provision, they ruled they could not rule on the provision until it was implemented. They also ruled that when implemented it could then be challenged. Further, they said that how the provision is implemented would impact the court's ruling on it's constitutionality. They further warned that if the implementation prolonged (and didn't say how long prolonged is...) the detention of an individual that that would be grounds to strike down this provision. In my opinion it is good to get all the facts before discussing things and this is an important fact.
I say it's only a matter of time till the "terroists" get into this program so they don't have to go through all the same stuff us "normal" citizens do. They already know how to get past the stuff we go though anyway...
What about if you buy a game and then find out later that buried deep in the game is an advert? You won't be able to tell just from the packaging that there's advertisements in the game.