[AusNOG] More legislative interventions

Thu Apr 11 09:00:10 EST 2019

Yeah even if you only reviewed "flagged" videos it'd be a gargantuan task.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 08:55, Jake Anderson <yahoo at vapourforge.com> wrote:

> Just for reference youtube would need 18000 humans in seats watching
> youtube 24/7 to have human screening of youtube.
> 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.
> 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.
>
> On 10/4/19 11:54 am, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
> 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:
>
> 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...
>
> or:
>
> 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?
>
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 11:45, Nick Stallman <nick at agentpoint.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/agentpoint-pty-ltd>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing listAusNOG at lists.ausnog.nethttp://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20190411/6d76dbed/attachment.html>