 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caitlynxliu.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. Relates to an important corporation (Microsoft) and issue (child protection). 2. Regularly mentioned in technology news. 3. Mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. 4. Employed as a technology by several corporations
Therefore, I believe that this technology deserves to be a separate article. LT90001 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article confuses PhotoDNA with Google's AI CSAM detection technology due to a misunderstanding of the cited New York Times story on the two dads[1].
From the NYT:
The tech industry’s first tool to seriously disrupt the vast online exchange of so-called child pornography was PhotoDNA [...] After Microsoft released PhotoDNA in 2009, Facebook and other tech companies used it to root out users circulating illegal and harmful imagery.
— NYT
This is the only time PhotoDNA is mentioned in the NYT story cited. The story goes on to discuss Google's AI tooling in contrast, explicitly stating that the photos in question were flagged by Google's AI rather than PhotoDNA.
A bigger breakthrough came along almost a decade later, in 2018, when Google developed an artificially intelligent tool that could recognize never-before-seen exploitative images of children. [...] When Mark’s and Cassio’s photos were automatically uploaded from their phones to Google’s servers, this technology flagged them.
— NYT
No other mention is made of PhotoDNA in the NYT story. The other cited articles (The Verge[2], Gizmodo[3], Techspot[4]) all make it clear that they are merely summarizing the NYT story, and only Techspot asserts any link between PhotoDNA and the images in question:
It seems that the images were automatically backed up to Google Photos, at which point the company's artificial intelligence tool and Microsoft's PhotoDNA flagged them as child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
— Techspot
C3pmark (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
