[AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[andy at coastalaudio.com.au]

OK…

 

Tin Eye is for image recognition, not video and it’s more concerned with duplication…

>From a quick read of their site, it doesn’t appear to be a neural network or AI…

Did you bother reading my last post about scalability?

Even if you used an algorithm like NSFW, it will scan one image every 30 seconds…

So at 25fps, that’s 749 images that could contain something potentially “nasty”…

Your argument is so flawed that it’s dangerous, especially given the Luddites currently in power…

Again, who is going to pay for the development of said “fingerprinting” and infrastructure?

The government? They screamed “financial crisis” and now 6 years later the debt has tripled…

They have based their PROJECTIONS of a surplus on the volatile commodities market…

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

From: AusNOG <ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> On Behalf Of Paul Wilkins
Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2019 11:17 AM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

 

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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20190410/c924580e/attachment.html>