I posted the other day that you can clean up your object storage from CSAM using my AI-based tool. Many people expressed the wish to use it on their local file storage-based pict-rs. So I’ve just extended its functionality to allow exactly that.
The new lemmy_safety_local_storage.py will go through your pict-rs volume in the filesystem and scan each image for CSAM, and delete it. The requirements are
- A linux account with read-write access to the volume files
- A private key authentication for that account
As my main instance is using object storage, my testing is limited to my dev instance, and there it all looks OK to me. But do run it with --dry_run if you’re worried. You can delete lemmy_safety and rerun to enforce the delete after (method to utilize the --dry_run results coming soon)
PS: if you were using the object storage cleanup, that script has been renamed to lemmy_safety_object_storage.py
I hope people share the positive hits of CSAM and see how widespread the problem is…
It sounds like you’re encouraging people to share CSAM images found, which is obviously not the intent of this tool. There’s probably a better way to phrase what you were trying to say.
Yes. odd how people think sharing CSAM is why people would post here, instead of actually tracking down and prosecuting those sharing CSAM. Details about the users who sharedl CSAM content, such as timestamps - would help identify the offenders for prosecution.
Because of the way pictrs organizes photos, which I believe is by hash (could be random id but I suspect not), you should be able to share filenames for cleanup by neighbors without having to share the contents.
Even if it’s not organized that way automatically, though, you can pretty easily use sha256sum to get a shareable hash before deleting the content.
It sounds like you’re encouraging people to share CSAM images found, which is obviously not the intent of this tool.
Yes, that is in fact the context.
Context: "which is obviously not the intent of this tool. "
it is not my intent to share the images, nor is it the context of the tool… Sharing details about the users, timestamps - would be the obvious context.
Why are you such a weirdo where that’s where your mind goes.
Sharing positive hits isn’t saying share the images. It’s saying share the data on who what when where how the hit showed up positive.
Who shared it.
What was it (this is obviously going to be some kind of CSAM given that’s the tool).
When did they share it (time stamps).
Where did they share it (was the same image hit on other runs and what instances did it hit on with the tool).
How did they do it (local sharing, an image hosting service, etc).
You list great points of information that should be shared to admins of other instances. Thanks for clarifying.
