[AusNOG] More legislative interventions

Nick Stallman nick at agentpoint.com
Wed Apr 10 11:45:25 EST 2019

I didn't know Tineye could tell if an image was violent or not.

The existing systems work for copyright purposes, finding a similar match.
This works to some extent currently, and can handle recompression, 
scaling, etc...
It falls apart when an adversary wants to get around it however.

But for the case that this legislation is targeting, i.e. taking down 
violent video, fingerprinting is useless.
It's brand new content - completely impossible to detect in advance.
You can only remove the content after it's been distributed for quite 
some time, not pre-emptively which is what the politicians want.

On 10/4/19 11:16 am, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> https://tineye.com/search/f274c3b49edcca9a6d83994a43629445a5ea5a23/
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 11:12, Matt Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org 
> <mailto:mpalmer at hezmatt.org>> wrote:
>     On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:56:12AM +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote:
>     > Now I would say that for instance, if the eSecurity Director
>     posts the CRC
>     > of a file as being "abhorrent violent" content, and your company
>     doesn't
>     > expeditiously take down that material, expect problems down the
>     pike. I
>     > doubt a CRC check alone is sufficient.
>     Given that a CRC changes if you modify any bit of the file, and
>     common CRC
>     implementations have a space of either 16 or 32 bits (65,536 and
>     ~4 billion
>     possible values, respectively), "insufficient" doesn't even begin to
>     describe such a scheme.
>     > I'd say a fingerprinting system to
>     > match altered copies of the subject file should be implemented.
>     Once again with this magical "figerprinting" scheme.  Nothing like
>     what
>     you're describing actually exists.  Further, there's no point in each
>     company coming up with their own scheme for calculating this magical
>     fingerprint, because if the eSecurity Director wants to say "take down
>     everything like this fingerprint" they have to use the *same*
>     scheme to come
>     up with the same fingerprint.
>     > It doesn't have to work in all cases.
>     It won't work in *any* case.
>     > I am not a lawyer. This is not expert advice.
>     Yes, I think that is quite evident.
>     - Matt
>     _______________________________________________
>     AusNOG mailing list
>     AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>     http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Nick Stallman
Technical Director
Email 	nick at agentpoint.com <mailto:nick at agentpoint.com>
Phone 	02 8039 6820 <tel:0280396820>
Website 	www.agentpoint.com.au <https://www.agentpoint.com.au/>

Agentpoint <https://www.agentpoint.com.au/>
Netpoint <https://netpoint.group/>

Level 3, 100 Harris Street, Pyrmont NSW 2009 	Facebook 
<https://www.facebook.com/agentpoint/> Twitter 
<https://twitter.com/agentpoint> Instagram 
<https://www.instagram.com/Agentpoint/> Linkedin 

More information about the AusNOG mailing list