<div dir="ltr">I feel like legislation will compel tech companies to implement human screening in some capacity, and there will be huge downsides to that - I mean, which is more likely:<div><br>a) screening team members are offered abundant mental health support resources, given follow-through on reporting (that video you flagged last year resulted in a conviction and a jail sentence, congratulations!) and are limited to short periods...</div><div><br></div><div>or:</div><div><br></div><div>b) screening team members are a minimum wage disposable/contractor/gig economy workforce, desperate for any income, performance tracked to the extreme (we require 55 minutes of video content viewed per hour) and discarded when they inevitably burn out?</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 11:45, Nick Stallman <<a href="mailto:nick@agentpoint.com">nick@agentpoint.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I didn't know Tineye could tell if an image was violent or not.<br>
<br>
The existing systems work for copyright purposes, finding a similar match.<br>
This works to some extent currently, and can handle recompression, <br>
scaling, etc...<br>
It falls apart when an adversary wants to get around it however.<br>
<br>
But for the case that this legislation is targeting, i.e. taking down <br>
violent video, fingerprinting is useless.<br>
It's brand new content - completely impossible to detect in advance.<br>
You can only remove the content after it's been distributed for quite <br>
some time, not pre-emptively which is what the politicians want.<br>
<br>
On 10/4/19 11:16 am, Paul Wilkins wrote:<br>
> <a href="https://tineye.com/search/f274c3b49edcca9a6d83994a43629445a5ea5a23/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://tineye.com/search/f274c3b49edcca9a6d83994a43629445a5ea5a23/</a><br>
><br>
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 11:12, Matt Palmer <<a href="mailto:mpalmer@hezmatt.org" target="_blank">mpalmer@hezmatt.org</a> <br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mpalmer@hezmatt.org" target="_blank">mpalmer@hezmatt.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:56:12AM +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote:<br>
> > Now I would say that for instance, if the eSecurity Director<br>
> posts the CRC<br>
> > of a file as being "abhorrent violent" content, and your company<br>
> doesn't<br>
> > expeditiously take down that material, expect problems down the<br>
> pike. I<br>
> > doubt a CRC check alone is sufficient.<br>
><br>
> Given that a CRC changes if you modify any bit of the file, and<br>
> common CRC<br>
> implementations have a space of either 16 or 32 bits (65,536 and<br>
> ~4 billion<br>
> possible values, respectively), "insufficient" doesn't even begin to<br>
> describe such a scheme.<br>
><br>
> > I'd say a fingerprinting system to<br>
> > match altered copies of the subject file should be implemented.<br>
><br>
> Once again with this magical "figerprinting" scheme. Nothing like<br>
> what<br>
> you're describing actually exists. Further, there's no point in each<br>
> company coming up with their own scheme for calculating this magical<br>
> fingerprint, because if the eSecurity Director wants to say "take down<br>
> everything like this fingerprint" they have to use the *same*<br>
> scheme to come<br>
> up with the same fingerprint.<br>
><br>
> > It doesn't have to work in all cases.<br>
><br>
> It won't work in *any* case.<br>
><br>
> > I am not a lawyer. This is not expert advice.<br>
><br>
> Yes, I think that is quite evident.<br>
><br>
> - Matt<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> AusNOG mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> AusNOG mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
-- <br>
Nick Stallman<br>
Technical Director<br>
Email <a href="mailto:nick@agentpoint.com" target="_blank">nick@agentpoint.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nick@agentpoint.com" target="_blank">nick@agentpoint.com</a>><br>
Phone 02 8039 6820 <tel:0280396820><br>
Website <a href="http://www.agentpoint.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.agentpoint.com.au</a> <<a href="https://www.agentpoint.com.au/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.agentpoint.com.au/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
Agentpoint <<a href="https://www.agentpoint.com.au/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.agentpoint.com.au/</a>><br>
Netpoint <<a href="https://netpoint.group/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://netpoint.group/</a>><br>
<br>
Level 3, 100 Harris Street, Pyrmont NSW 2009 Facebook <br>
<<a href="https://www.facebook.com/agentpoint/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/agentpoint/</a>> Twitter <br>
<<a href="https://twitter.com/agentpoint" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/agentpoint</a>> Instagram <br>
<<a href="https://www.instagram.com/Agentpoint/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.instagram.com/Agentpoint/</a>> Linkedin <br>
<<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/agentpoint-pty-ltd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/company/agentpoint-pty-ltd</a>><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</blockquote></div>