[AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[andy at coastalaudio.com.au]

Let's see this wonderful "fingerprint" Paul...

Video fingerprinting is used for copyright purposes and is of no use in
detecting "suspect" videos.
The AI algorithm required to do this would require a lot of processing
power.
Just how is a provider supposed to finance the development of said
algorithm...?
And then apply it in real time across an entire network?
The computational power required would be enormous, thus YouTube's abject
failure in this area.

Open NSFW is an open source neural network that struggles with static
images...
How is a provider supposed to monitor video in real time?

An interesting Open NSFW talk here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Bmt7tksvM 

Andy




-----Original Message-----
From: AusNOG <ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> On Behalf Of Peter Fern
Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2019 2:30 PM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

On 9/4/19 2:22 pm, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> 2 - Ensure you have in place a mechanism to match electronic 
> fingerprints of material similar to anything identified in a eSafety 
> Commissioner's notice.
>
> By the by, without a mechanism for the eSafety Commissioner to match 
> content (a common mechanism for electronic fingerprinting material 
> across hosting providers), the eSafety Commissioner will find 
> themselves playing whack a mole chasing content specific to each 
> hosting provider.

What do you think that looks like, exactly? You've brought up this magical
fingerprint technology multiple times, and been rebuffed multiple times,
with no response. I think it's irresponsible to suggest that this is an easy
solve.
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com