[I planned for these contributions to be inserted after the writing of what is currently the PhotoDNA article]

While PhotoDNA has shown promising results in the battle against internet child abuse images, there are some limitations that need to be addressed. First of all, since PhotoDNA makes hash marks of a whole image, it cannot be used to recognize a specific person or object in an image.^{[1] [2]}This does greatly reduce the images that can be recognized, but none-the-less the technology is still very impactful. Second, the hash marks cannot be used to derive a photo, in other words going from photo to fingerprint is a one-way street.^[2] So, if investigators had a fingerprint, they would not simply be able to generate what that photo looks like and hunt from there. They need the photo to compare to, from their database of known abusive images. Here, it is seen that PhotoDNA can only detect photos from a known database, so it should be emphasized that its main function is to stop the spread of such horrific images and videos. PhotoDNA cannot discover new abusive content.^[1][2]

If these were to be corrected, PhotoDNA would be able to help victims to a fuller capacity. Some of these corrections may not be possible, but the technology has still helped many.  

As always, there is room for misuse of any technology. This one however has some safeguards built in. Investigators can scan emails using PhotoDNA to search for abusive known images. This may seem invasive to users' privacy, but since the technology looks for specific hash marks, investigators are able to run the program without ever looking at the actual images.^[1] So, privacy and safety are able to coexist.  

Inventing a technology that helps stop an issue as vile as this one is a very honorable thing for a company to do. But things are rarely done without an underlying incentive. Just like when Google created AlphaGo, an artificial intelligence that was beating humans at a strategy game,^[3] they weren’t investing all their time into something that was simply playing games. No, this technology could be sold and used for other purposes. When Microsoft created PhotoDNA, they probably did really want to help exploited children. However, they may have had some of their own underlying incentives. Like any tech company, no one would want these illicit photos are their sites. That would lead to a decline in users, thus less of a profit. Microsoft would not want that. It has been proven that many social media platforms have implemented this technology only after these photographs were found on their sites and available for countless to see. ^[4] If they cared exclusively for these children and not their own reputation, they would have used PhotoDNA before the damage began. Apps know it happens on other sites; they need to do what they can to help on theirs. Also, the technology of creating hash marks to identify images can be used in other manners. Other tech companies can use it to identify terrorist propaganda and patented material. ^[1] Selling this technology to other companies would also benefit Microsoft. So, while Microsoft is doing an amazing thing for these innocent children, they also benefit from creating a versatile technology.

It is important to note how PhotoDNA as a science relates to law and culture. It was created for the purpose of helping law enforcement stop the spread of child abuse images on the internet and finding the culprits who harvested and shared such images. When a science is created for the law, its purpose is usually to provide evidence and reasoning in order to find the guilty party and serve justice. The science here, PhotoDNA, is a helpful tool in finding where illegal images are hiding, but it is up to investigators to deduce who was keeping these photographs, and who shared them. In other words, the technology cannot do everything on its own, it must be supplemented by detectives and tech companies who are willing to use this software. Law must first create the reasonable rules that something is illegal, and then find humans willing to stop the problem and bring criminals to justice. The technology and science are used to help these gatekeepers, but it can only do so with the approval of its society. The public must be willing to put their faith in the science, if the common person does not understand or does not trust a certain scientific principle, then their trust in the legal system, who justifies their decisions based upon the science, may crumble. Also, if a person gets put on a jury and the evidence used is based upon a science that the media has portrayed as unreliable, then that juror is swayed even before listening to the expert what their decision will be. So, if culture dictates what jurors believe to be credible, then that in turn affects what laws will be created. The law is designed to be for the people, so when they speak, the law must listen. If society says no, so will the law, limiting what science can and can’t do. However, since the legal system is full of experts, they will also assess the technology, PhotoDNA, and determine if it is a trustworthy system of evidence. The law also has an impact on how society thinks about evidence, they are the ones presenting it and determining if it will pass through.  But the legal system doesn’t always work. Evidence can be misread or mispresented, or maybe the investigation was one-sided. Maybe not all the angles were looked at. The imperfections of the legal system play a role in the downfall of society’s belief in law. However, if science as evidence is re-looked at, there may be a trust that science can build back for the public.  

In the case of PhotoDNA, it should also be considered what is being patented. The technology of being able to create identifiable hash marks is patented by Microsoft.^[2] But when talking about how PhotoDNA is used to protect against the unauthorized use of copyright material, it is important to consider that that material, for example songs, being copyrighted has its own unique hash mark, or pattern, that goes along with it. The song itself is copyrighted by the artist, but does the artist have the patent on its individual pattern or do the creators of the technology that makes the pattern, Microsoft? This is another example of the restrictions law has on science and could have an impact on future court cases.

It is important to look at the relationships between law, science, and culture when thinking of PhotoDNA because it helps readers understand how their opinions of certain technologies may be formed based on what they hear in the news. It should also be noted that this whole circuit determines the credibility and future use of PhotoDNA. Many people may not realize how substantial an impact they have on the law and science it utilizes, but hopefully now they do. They are now able to apply this to other technologies and court cases, thinking critically.

This is a user sandbox of KatelikesScience. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the place where you work on your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. Visit your Dashboard course page and follow the links for your assigned article in the My Articles section. Get Help