<div dir="ltr">Yeah even if you only reviewed "flagged" videos it'd be a gargantuan task. <div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 08:55, Jake Anderson <<a href="mailto:yahoo@vapourforge.com">yahoo@vapourforge.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">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="gmail-m_3063251060866377441moz-cite-prefix">Just for reference youtube would need
18000 humans in seats watching youtube 24/7 to have human
screening of youtube.</div>
<div class="gmail-m_3063251060866377441moz-cite-prefix">Say around 72,000 employees give or
take. If my maths is right (and it could well be out by an order
of magnitude) that's is a nice round billion dollars in wages cost
at US minimum wage.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail-m_3063251060866377441moz-cite-prefix">That's presuming they are watching in
real time of course not some kind of clockwork orange torture
chamber with 10 videos simultaneously at warp speed then just
firing them when they miss something.</div>
<div class="gmail-m_3063251060866377441moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail-m_3063251060866377441moz-cite-prefix">On 10/4/19 11:54 am, Scott Wilson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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" target="_blank">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>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_3063251060866377441mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="gmail-m_3063251060866377441moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_3063251060866377441moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="gmail-m_3063251060866377441moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div>