> Who audits these databases? Where is the oversight to guarantee only appropriate content is included? They are famously opaque because the very viewing of the content is illegal. So how can we know that they contain what they are purported to contain?

I wholeheartedly agree: there is an audit question here too. The contents of the database are by far the most dangerous part of this equation, malicious or not, targeted or not. I don't like the privacy implications about this, nor the potential for abuse. I would love to see some kind of way to audit the database, or ensure that it's only used "for good." I just don't know what that system is, and I know that PhotoDNA is already in use on other cloud providers.

Matthew Green's ongoing analysis [0] is really worth keeping an eye on. For example, there's a good question: can you just scan against a different database for different people? These are the right questions given what we have right now.

[0]: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/14233782854682091...

That’s a problem with NCMEC, not Apple’s proposal today. Furthermore, if it were an actual problem, it would’ve already manifested with the numerous current users of PhotoDNA which includes Facebook and Google. I don’t think the database of known CSAM content includes photos that cannot be visually recognized as child abuse.

>> Who audits these databases?

Maybe pedophiles working for those companies.

"Reports from commenters" = unsubstantiated speculation. Weird how no one was able to specifically state any information about these unobjectionable photos except for a theoretical mechanism for them to find their way into the database.