Using YouTube For File Storage

Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ever thought it might be a good idea to store encrypted data in a QRCode video?

Not even a little bit. Now that you mention it though, it does sound like possibly one of the dumber ideas I've heard in quite some time.

Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by ememisya · 2013-05-07 05:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ever thought it might be a good idea to store encrypted data in a QRCode video?
Not even a little bit. Now that you mention it though, it does sound like possibly one of the dumber ideas I've heard in quite some time.
So considering a scenario like a student posting Iron Man 3, camera rip and the encryption key as another video onto YouTube, and the links in another forum. Who would be responsible for this copyright infringement? YouTube for having encrypted video data? It could be argued that YouTube is only carrying gibberish video data. The forum? The forum is only containing links to YouTube which is perfectly free to do. Could it be the software for putting the key and the data together? I wouldn't think so, because then any encryption library is responsible for its resulting data. It could be argued that it wouldn't be illegal until the user started writing the actual video onto his/her harddrive, at which point there will be no internet connection to detect anything unusual. Now, I'm a person who believes copying something and taking that copy is different than taking that thing itself, but I know how copyright laws are touchy about these scenarios :) My guess is they would put the pressure on YouTube to detect videos with too many QRCodes in their frames and remove them and it will soon be in their Terms of Service. If enough people abused this method anyways, writing a browser plugin to detect YouTube and offer file uploading options will fire this away to the spiral of doom, sort of like FireSheep and facebook https.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Someone finally finds a use for QR codes, pairs it with social media and cloud based storage...and all you can do is pooh pooh the idea.
I'm writing an iphone app to do this as we speak. This is going to be huge! Where the venture capitalists at? Holla!
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by omnichad · 2013-05-07 06:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Who would be responsible for this copyright infringement? YouTube for having encrypted video data? It could be argued that YouTube is only carrying gibberish video data. The forum?
The student who posted it. If you want to get technical, the QR code video on Youtube is not gibberish video data. It's a copy of the movie. It's just a different carrier. Unless you think turning on SSL in bittorrent means you're transmitting gibberish data.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by jones_supa · 2013-05-07 06:08 · Score: 1

In my opinion the mere act of uploading obvious gibberish would be enough of argument for YouTube to delete the video. Same thing if you uploaded a video containing only white noise as the picture: it's there just to waste Google's hard drive space.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by ememisya · 2013-05-07 06:25 · Score: 2

LOL absolutely, it's just not something YouTube willingly considered as of yet. Unless you want to push "Dance of the Pixels" artistic value of the video content, then it's perfectly fine to post it.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by killkillkill · 2013-05-07 06:26 · Score: 1

In my opinion the mere act of uploading obvious gibberish would be enough of argument for YouTube to delete the video
Depending on where you draw the line on gibberish, that could remove nearly all of YouTube's content. Certainly all the "vlogs"
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by ememisya · 2013-05-07 06:28 · Score: 2

If you want to get technical, the QR code video on Youtube is not gibberish video data. It's a copy of the movie. It's just a different carrier. Unless you think turning on SSL in bittorrent means you're transmitting gibberish data.
How would you prove without the key that the video on YouTube is not gibberish video data?
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by omnichad · 2013-05-07 06:34 · Score: 2

I said that the student is responsible for the infringement. I never said it would be proven in court.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by blueg3 · 2013-05-07 06:45 · Score: 1

How would you prove without the key that the video on YouTube is not gibberish video data?
Why not use the key that you said was posted as a separate YouTube video?

...and the encryption key as another video onto YouTube?
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by ememisya · 2013-05-07 06:52 · Score: 2

Right, but that's like saying you have a bomb in your house because you have pool cleaning materials in your tool shed. Separately both are gibberish videos, when put together, using an algorithm, the resulting combination (a new file) will be illegal. Another example would be taking a naked female statue, which due to its artistic value is not R-Rated, and taking the picture of a girl in a bikini, which again in and of itself is not R-Rated. Now, if you photoshop the statue's naughty parts onto the picture of the girl in the bikini, you have an R-Rated picture.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by vux984 · 2013-05-07 06:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Same thing if you uploaded a video containing only white noise as the picture: it's there just to waste Google's hard drive space.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7NbRFyg3Y
Good times.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 07:04 · Score: 1

"it's there just to waste Google's hard drive space." There are a lot of videos in _that_ category.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by nabsltd · 2013-05-07 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

I said that the student is responsible for the infringement. I never said it would be proven in court.
Even if it could be proven in court, that would set the precendent that any file of exactly the right number of bytes could be called "infringing".
This is because for any given set of bytes the same length as copyrighted content, there is some transform that will convert the bytes into the copyrighted content. Even if you really did start with the copyrighted content, until you perform the transform, there is no infringement.
As an example, if I encrypted the image of a commercial Blu-Ray disk with a random key that I do not know and then posted it to someplace that anybody could download it, I have not infringed, since all I did was post some bytes. If somebody guesses the key and posts it, then they are also not guilty of infringement. The only people who might be guilty of infringement would be those who use the key and decrypt the bytes into the copyrighted work.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by flyingfsck · 2013-05-07 07:25 · Score: 1

Hmm, even a single byte can be transformed into a copyrighted movie...

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 07:28 · Score: 0

Even if it could be proven in court, that would set the precendent that any file of exactly the right number of bytes could be called "infringing".
This is because for any given set of bytes the same length as copyrighted content, there is some transform that will convert the bytes into the copyrighted content. Even if you really did start with the copyrighted content, until you perform the transform, there is no infringement.
Bad news I'm afraid; people just aren't as stupid as you think they are. Pretty stupid, sure. Very very stupid, perhaps. But not stupid enough to fall for that line.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by ememisya · 2013-05-07 07:33 · Score: 1

Hmm, even a single byte can be transformed into a copyrighted movie...
Did you know the slashdot logo image can also be transformed into a copyrighted movie?
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 07:34 · Score: 0

There's no such thing as an R-rated picture.
Re: Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 08:09 · Score: 0

You can't even check for same length. Alter the frame rate slightly or re-encode the thing and you get an entirely different bitstream.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by flayzernax · 2013-05-07 08:26 · Score: 1

Well, if he's not making a profit off of it and sharing it privately its really close to grounds for fair use ;) As there is nothing wrong with creating a "digital library" of copywrited works.
The only issue in your senario is that the copy was obtained "illegally". Which is more of a civil matter then a legal one. Since it has more to do with taping something on private property. Or thats how it use to be, I'm sure the guy would be a 50 year federal conviction now.
Youtube definitely says you can't do that so his account could be terminated no problem on their end. Personally thats the worst I would hold him too. If he wants to create a digital library he should pay for it, and the media that goes into it.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by tibit · 2013-05-07 09:23 · Score: 2

QRCode is stupid. What is not stupid, though, would be leveraging the fact that if you upload in a correct format that's not subject to reencoding, you can pretty much fill it with arbitrary data at 90%+ efficiency. You need to wrap it in the codec data structure format, and massage it a bit so that various bits of the codec consider it valid. It'll look like "noise", but it gives you what you want, at an efficiency orders of magnitude better than QRCode.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by tibit · 2013-05-07 09:24 · Score: 1

But it's an entirely true line. Is it called stupidity to "fall" for truth?

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Tom · 2013-05-07 09:52 · Score: 2

Who would be responsible for this copyright infringement?

You think you are smarter than the people who write and interpret the laws. Newsflash: You aren't. Chances are, they yawn at your scheme. Because, you know, people trying to find loopholes in the law isn't exactly news, they've been around for at least 2000 years, and the law-people have been dealing with them that long. We techies are just the most recent breed.
I've worked with lawyers and judges. Trust me, all these geeky schemes of distributing the responsibility until it disappears is at best mildely interesting to them. The law doesn't go by technical details, it goes by intent and action. So, basically, if it's a copy of Iron Man 3, and you uploaded it, then you are guilty of copyright infringement, period. All the encryption and key and bla bla bla doesn't change the basic facts, it only makes it more difficult to prove your act.
Really, stop being so arrogant and thinking that you can outsmart a profession 50 times older than your own on their home turf.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Tom · 2013-05-07 10:02 · Score: 2

You are thinking like a geek, not like a lawyer or judge.
Evidence and proof aside, a lawyer or judge will look at it more like this:
Encrypting something is inconsequential in the legal sense. After a few beer, one might be inclined to discuss whether or not encrypting copyrighted material falls under the definition of a derived work, but most likely it would not because there's no creative act involved, and thus not a derivation, but a simply copy.
If you make your copy available online, you are guilty. Encryption doesn't matter. It's just a reversible transformation. That the downloader can't use it without the key doesn't matter. The illegal act is the act of copying, not of watching.
Do you really think a centuries-old profession of people who all went to university just like we IT guys did are so easily defeated? That's the equivalent of saying if you take the keyboard away from a geek, he'll be baffled and incapable of doing any computer stuff ever again. Of course not, how stupid. He'll just find a new keyboard and all you've done is keep him busy for a few hours. Same with all those geeky hiding schemes. Legally, they'll amuse the judge for a few minutes and that's all.
The advantages of encryption and steganography have never been on the legal side, but on making it more difficult to prove that you did what you did, or capture you doing it in the first place.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 10:06 · Score: 0

Even if you really did start with the copyrighted content, until you perform the transform, there is no infringement.
As an example, if I encrypted the image of a commercial Blu-Ray disk with a random key that I do not know and then posted it to someplace that anybody could download it, I have not infringed, since all I did was post some bytes.
Look up "derivative work."
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 10:17 · Score: 0

As an example, if I encrypted the image of a commercial Blu-Ray disk with a random key that I do not know and then posted it to someplace that anybody could download it, I have not infringed, since all I did was post some bytes. If somebody guesses the key and posts it, then they are also not guilty of infringement. The only people who might be guilty of infringement would be those who use the key and decrypt the bytes into the copyrighted work.
As an example, if I am caught at an airport with drugs in my suitcase, in a package that a friend gave to me, then I have not transported drugs, since all I did was transport a package. If a dealer steals that package, they are also not guilty of transporting drugs. The only people who might be guilty of transporting drugs are the people who would open the package.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 10:32 · Score: 0

Fb vs V rapbqr zl cvengrq robbxf va ebg13 vg'f yrtny, evtug?
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-05-07 10:39 · Score: 1

> Even if it could be proven in court, that would set the
> precendent that any file of exactly the right number of
> bytes could be called "infringing".
The copyright is on the movie, not the bytes.
From that perspective, any representation in bytes or any other transform is irrelevant.
People upload crappy quality movies, misalign audio, swap in different audio, even flip it left to right, all in hopes of avoiding automated detection. But automated detection is a tool; it is not the definition of copyright violation.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Requiem18th · 2013-05-07 10:40 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure the forum and the decryption tool maker are liable too, for "aiding in copyright infringement". There is the "letter of the law" method of interpretation and the "spirit of the law"way of interpretation and judges generally prefer to interpret the law according to who is buying their next yacht.

--
But... the future refused to change.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by FireFury03 · 2013-05-07 10:51 · Score: 1

The student who posted it. If you want to get technical, the QR code video on Youtube is not gibberish video data. It's a copy of the movie. It's just a different carrier. Unless you think turning on SSL in bittorrent means you're transmitting gibberish data.
The more interesting question is: Get a movie and a random bitstream; post the random bitstream online (1); XOR the movie with the random bitstream and post the result online (2).
Are (1) or (2) infringing copyright? If so, which one, and why? Remember, independently both (1) and (2) are indistinguishable from random data.
Also, these bitstreams can themselves be used as random input for another XOR operation.

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by CTachyon · 2013-05-07 11:44 · Score: 1

Go read "What Colour are your bits?".

--
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by real-modo · 2013-05-07 11:59 · Score: 1

Copyright? What's going on with this thread?
I read TFS as saying "hey -- how about using Youtube as another free online backup service?"
Not going to work because of DMCA takedowns.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by omnichad · 2013-05-07 12:45 · Score: 1

Even though they're indistinguishable from random data, they are "derivative works" of the copyrighted material and are in violation. Of course nobody can prosecute or even determine this, but under the law that's how it is.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by TheChewanater · 2013-05-07 12:59 · Score: 2

Hmm, even a single byte can be transformed into a copyrighted movie...
0x6f

Sue me!
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by cheater512 · 2013-05-07 13:10 · Score: 1

With the power of XOR, I can take a PDF of the Bible and some gibberish and turn it in to a movie.
Now the gibberish clearly isn't a valid movie, and while yes it becomes one when combining with the Bible you could combine it with the Qu'ran and get something in the public domain.
The movie industry clearly doesn't own the Bible or the Qu'ran so they are clear.
And the nature of mathematics is that doing arbitrary operations on some data can change it in to anything.
You clearly can't have a blanket copyright over everything that could potentially be a movie.
Either the movie industry can copyright provably random gibberish that they did not create or they can't.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Tom · 2013-05-07 22:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

You still think on the wrong track. Really.
People thought they could do the same thing with basically any crime in the books - make some changes to the way it is done so that it isn't recognizable anymore and get away.
Surprise, the law doesn't care about the way you do it. If you kill someone, that's murder (or any of a related, bla) and it doesn't matter if you used a gun or a knife or an orbital laser array that you programmed through a Tor network and accessed over an encrypted botnet controller interface with a hundred other layers of indirection. It'll make proving that it was you who pushed the button more difficult, but if that can be done than it's still murder, plain and simple.
Same thing with copyright infringement. You take a copyrighted work, apply any number of whatever operations on it, make a copy and distribute it and you're in violation of copyright, plain and simple. The number and kind of operations in the intermediate step don't matter one iota. And as long as you don't get that into your head, you'll be laughed at when they slam you. Do you think the judge will be the smallest bit impressed by anything you said above? He'll have one question and one question only and that is: Did you copy a copyrighted work without authorisation, yes or no?
And no, that is not something that is unique of this new digital world. That's techie bla bla. You can say the same of paint or letters. No, the book sellers don't have a copyright on the letters A through Z, but they do have a copyright on a specific number of them in a specific order, otherwise known as a novel, or a poem, or a drama or whatever.
No, the movie industrie does not have a copyright on 0 and 1, yes it does hold the copyright to specific collections of 0s and 1s in specific orders. Or more specifically: To the content of what these numbers represent.
Copyright is not a mathematical concept. You can't "defeat" it with mathematics. For all the law cares, math is a tool to apply transformations on content, but that doesn't change the fact that the content is copyrighted, end of story.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by chrismcb · 2013-05-07 23:51 · Score: 1

So considering a scenario like a student posting Iron Man 3,.... Who would be responsible for this copyright infringement?

I think you've already answered your own question. The student posted the movie, and the key, to a public forum. He is responsible.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by blueg3 · 2013-05-08 02:52 · Score: 1

Not at all. You're thinking of technical workarounds to the law -- which geeks often do, and which is generally not correct.
See, the two videos posted to YouTube aren't gibberish. They aren't raw materials. By using one to decrypt the other, you're not transforming them in the same way you're performing a transformation when you Photoshop a picture or mix chemicals together to make a bomb. You started with a video, encrypted it, converted it into an odd visual encoding, and posted the result to YouTube. Even though the result can separately be interpreted as a "gibberish video", it's history makes it clear that it's not, and through that history it retains its essence as a copy of the original video. Likewise, you cannot claim that a copy of the video on your hard drive is just a bunch of bits on disk, and you can't claim that a copy of the video on a VHS cassette is just magnetized tape.
The properties of encryption actually make it easy to prove that if the two videos can be combined to produce the "illicit" video, then it must have been the illicit video in the first place. The probability of producing anything intelligible (or even with a valid format) from a ciphertext and a key that don't go together is impossibly small. If you combine a ciphertext and a key and get something intelligible out, it must be the case (statistically) that they in fact go together and that the ciphertext was produced using that plaintext and key.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by flayzernax · 2013-05-08 02:53 · Score: 1

*its a criminal vs civil legal matter, not a legal vs civil matter. * just wanted to tidy this up.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by poetmatt · 2013-05-08 03:27 · Score: 1

How about putting it on any website other than youtube, because you should not be putting videos on youtube, ever - aside from glaring social issues where youtube will stand up for you. Youtube is a site that has zero rights for the people who upload. Their only respect is towards the MPAA/RIAA.
Find other video websites and do this, and suddenly it's a different situation.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by felipou · 2013-05-08 03:29 · Score: 1

Your comment could (probably can) be a "encrypted" form of something copyrighted, given the right proportions. Are you infringing copyright?
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Tom · 2013-05-08 09:56 · Score: 2

You are still trying to win points with sophism after I've told you that the only thing you'll get for that is a reprimand for wasting the court's time if things ever get to that level?
I am not infringing copyright because I created those words myself, so I am the copyright holder.
Again, don't think that playing tricks with math is the first anyone has ever come up with. Sure, mathemetically you can find a transformation function that turns Bambi into Star Wars. And once more I'm telling you that is at best mildly amusing to a judge.
Really, get your head out of your math dream world. You can go round and round elaborating how your Tor network send packets around, in the end the only question that matters is still going to be whether you did or did not press that button, knowing it would cause a man to die.
Or, in the case of copyright violation, the question will be whether or not you intended to make a copy of a copyrighted work available to others without authorisation. No matter what tricks and hoops and math you put inbetween. You really, really need to get that into your head: It doesn't matter. Not one bit. In fact, a good prosecutor will use every additional step you add to convince the court that you were trying hard to cover up your steps proving that you knew what you did was illegal.
You aren't the first to try playing tricks with math, language or whatever other tool on the law. Unfortunately for you, the law has two millenia more experience in this game.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by nabsltd · 2013-05-08 15:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you make your copy available online, you are guilty. Encryption doesn't matter. It's just a reversible transformation. That the downloader can't use it without the key doesn't matter.
So, if take output of /dev/urandom that's the same number of bytes as Blu-Ray movie image, XOR it with Blu-Ray movie image, upload it and announce to the world that it is an encrypted version of Blu-Ray movie image, then I'm guilty of infringement? It's just a "reversible transformation"..all you have to do is guess the 40-billion byte key.

You are thinking like a geek, not like a lawyer or judge.
This is one of the many problems with lawyers and judges...they are making and enforcing rules about things that they don't comprehend. Regardless of the length of the key, distributing an encrypted version of a copyrighted work isn't copyright infringement.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by nabsltd · 2013-05-08 15:58 · Score: 1

You take a copyrighted work, apply any number of whatever operations on it, make a copy and distribute it and you're in violation of copyright, plain and simple.
Please refer us to the rulings in court cases that shows your statement is correct.
Based on the current state of rulings on "fair use" where the original work is copied fairly whole (like the Obama "Hope" poster), making an exact but transformed copy may or may not be infringement.

For all the law cares, math is a tool to apply transformations on content, but that doesn't change the fact that the content is copyrighted, end of story.
This is not what the law says. The law refers to copies being "fixed" into a medium, and for digital media, it's not the "fixed bits", but rather what the bits express (e.g., the pictures and sound of a movie, or the sound of a song). This is how copyright infringement can be claimed on Blu-Ray rips, which aren't an exact copy of either the bits or the pictures, but rather the content of the pictures. Since an encrypted version of the copyrighted content cannot be shown to contain the content in any way, it's not infringing.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by nabsltd · 2013-05-08 16:07 · Score: 1

The copyright is on the movie, not the bytes.
Since what was uploaded can't be played as a movie, then it can't be copyright infringement.

From that perspective, any representation in bytes or any other transform is irrelevant.
You can't have it both ways. If an encrypted version is infringement because it can be transformed into an infringing file, then any file that can be transformed into an infringing file is infringement.
After some point, the amount of work that must be done to convert an possibly infringing work into a definitely infringing one must be enough that no reasonable person would claim infringement. This won't stop the big media companies, because we know they aren't reasonable, but hopefully some judges will start to understand that technology does change how copyright law needs to be interpreted.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by RockDoctor · 2013-05-08 20:42 · Score: 1

My guess is they would put the pressure on YouTube to detect videos with too many QRCodes in their frames and remove them and it will soon be in their Terms of Service.
I doubt that YouTube would be terribly fussed by the legal aspects of this. With these QR codes the fact that there is some "other data" in the file is pretty glaringly obvious, but it should also be pretty glaringly obvious how to re-work this idea to offer true steganography : just leave the embedded signal running as a few percent of shifts in red, green or blue (or luminance? Depends on your encoding?) signals overprinted on otherwise normal-looking video. You'd end up with something that looks like it comes from a rather shoddy camera with a problem in it's circuits. Or indeed, like a video from an NTSC source (what's the nickname? Never Twice the Same Colour, or something similar?) Then you're into full-blown steganography.
Not having ever read the YouTube terms of service, I don't *know*, but I'd be moderately surprised if there wasn't already a catch-all clause in there banning steganography, and even more surprised if there wasn't already a clause banning any illegal usage.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Tom · 2013-05-09 01:10 · Score: 1

It probably is an act on infringement because a copyrighted movie was used in the creation of your output data. Basically, you're trying to tell the judge that a*b is different from b*a. If you do that for real I wouldn't be surprised if you get an additional fine for contempt of court.
Cryptographically, your xor transform is a one-time-pad encryption and crazy secure. But legally speaking it's no different from ROT13'ing the movie. The matter in front of the judge is not going to be the strength of your encryption, but the question of copyright infringement. And unless your lawyer finds a part in the relevant laws where it says that strong encryption is an exception case, you're still toast.
That's what I'm trying to tell you people: All thise mental masturbation is on the geek, tech, crypto level and not on the law level.
Ok, maybe a different example: Explain to your girlfriend how what you did was technically not cheating. You can have a bulletproof argument that can be logically proven to be correct. It won't matter, because you are playing the wrong game. You might win the argument, you'll lose the girl.
Same with this. You might win admiration from fellow geeks for a nifty scheme, you'll lose the court battle. Because you're fighting the wrong game.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Tom · 2013-05-09 01:16 · Score: 1

Please refer us to the rulings in court cases that shows your statement is correct.
Uh, any case on digital copyright infringement ever? You can't make a digital copy without transformation steps, if nothing else than the error correction on the low-level storage will differ from one copy to the other. No one has brought that argument up yet, AFAIK - why? Because the lawyers know it doesn't matter.
Fair use is an entirely different thing. Fair use is where copying is allowed. You wouldn't have to encrypt or otherwise change anything because it's legal in the first place.

Since an encrypted version of the copyrighted content cannot be shown to contain the content in any way, it's not infringing.
Ok, here's a key: 12345
Please RSA-encrypt a movie of your choice with it and send it to me. I'll notify the police and you can test that defense in court.
More seriously, I did point out several times in this discussion that for the sake of the argument I'm ignoring the problem of evidence and proof. Yes, encryption can make it more difficult to prove that the file you torrented actually is a copyrighted work. But that wasn't what the OP was going for, he thought he could evade the law by the digital equivalent of handwaving.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by nabsltd · 2013-05-09 09:25 · Score: 1

It probably is an act on infringement because a copyrighted movie was used in the creation of your output data.
"Probably"? If you don't know whether making an encrypted copy of a copyrighted work is infringment, how can you speak on any other part of copyright law?

The matter in front of the judge is not going to be the strength of your encryption, but the question of copyright infringement.
And tell me, exactly how a copyright holder is going to prove the infringment if they can't show that the data is a copy of their movie? Any statement I might have made about whether it was or was not an encrypted copy is going to be useless in a lawsuit, as I could post details claiming I have rented and copied every DVD available from Netflix, and no court would even consider starting a lawsuit based on solely that to be anything close to valid.
Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? by Tom · 2013-05-09 22:56 · Score: 1

"Probably"? If you don't know whether making an encrypted copy of a copyrighted work is infringment, how can you speak on any other part of copyright law?
Read up on hedges.
IANAL and this is not legal advise, bla bla. I say "probably" because I'm not a professional in this area and thus I can't be 100% sure that there is not a very specific exception that might apply to this very specific case, but for the general point of the argument, it is an infringement.

And tell me, exactly how a copyright holder is going to prove the infringment
I did point out several times throughout this thread that I am excluding the problem of evidence from the argument, because it's not relevant to the point. Claiming you have found a way to commit a crime undetected, and claiming you have found a way in which a crime is not a crime anymore are two very different claims and shouldn't be mixed up.
The OP claimed that by using math tricks, he could commit copyright infringement in plain sight because it somehow isn't copyright infringement anymore. I'm arguing against that specific point, not against any attempt to hide or obfuscate what you're doing.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Title: "LSD snow-storm" by Tablizer · 2013-05-07 04:37 · Score: 2

No wonder your snowy pixel vids are so boring.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:Title: "LSD snow-storm" by The_Wilschon · 2013-05-07 05:30 · Score: 2

The video reminds me of Snow Crash. Be careful. It could eat your brain!

--
SIGSEGV caught, terminating

wait... not that kind of sig.

Lolzers. by RightSaidFred99 · 2013-05-07 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sure Youtube will _never_ notice this and your foolproof plan will be good for all time.

You might be OK with some steganography, but otherwise they will thwart you if more than a few people do this.

Re:Lolzers. by Cenan · 2013-05-07 04:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

The fact that you can have the "super smart encrypted content" taken down with a moments notice by serving a bogus DMCA never entered the submitters mind.

--
... whatever ...
Re:Lolzers. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:07 · Score: 0

You might be OK with some steganography
Probably not since the videos will be processed to adjust quality, resolution etc. That will lead to some data loss/change that'll corrupt the hidden data.
Re:Lolzers. by Megane · 2013-05-07 05:19 · Score: 0

RTFA. He's using a bunch of images of QR codes, which have built in error correction.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Lolzers. by tom17 · 2013-05-07 05:28 · Score: 1

RTFC. He's replying to a suggestion of using some steganography :)
Re:Lolzers. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:28 · Score: 0

RTFA. He's using a bunch of images of QR codes, which have built in error correction.
GP was referring to GGP's suggestion to use steganography instead of QR codes. Context is important, you should pay attention to it.
Re:Lolzers. by tverbeek · 2013-05-07 05:31 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah, this is a textbook example* of how relying on an outside "cloud" service – especially one that you have no contractual control over – to store your data is a really dumb idea.

*OK, maybe it's just in the teacher's edition.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Lolzers. by TheCarp · 2013-05-07 06:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

No its an example of how naively relying on an uncontracted outside "cloud" service is a really dumb idea.
Now imagine you split your data up into a Set of messages, which can be recovered by any sufficiently large subset of more than N messages? This is what tahoe lafs does, typically using 10 messages, any 6 of which can recover the original.... of course its all encrypted too.
Then all you need is some process which periodically checks the messages and ensures that you always have some threshold (which should really be larger than N, by at least a few).
There is also no need for QR codes to be used, thats another example of naive use. It would actually be vastly more efficient to encode the data differently, but, encoding in such ways as to not be easily detected and removed by youtube could be tricky. However, if you could find a way to minimally disguise the data so it just looks like hours of terribly boring video (like, video of your pet fish)....
Shit you could probably just keep re-uploading the same fish video with differently encoded data and new names....nobody is going to examine hours of fish swimming to determine where the loop is or whether the two videos are of the same loop.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Lolzers. by jones_supa · 2013-05-07 06:12 · Score: 1

RTFA. He's using a bunch of images of QR codes, which have built in error correction.
Derp. The comment you replied to wasn't directly commenting the article but a reply to RightSaidFred99's comment about using steganography.
Re:Lolzers. by necro81 · 2013-05-07 06:15 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, I don't think you could count on steganography. YouTube transcodes, resizes, and manipulates the raw video fifty ways till sunday - whatever information you've stored in the frames could easily be lost or corrupted. What is more, you have to worry about playback problems: dynamic bitrates, dropped frames, and the like. By the time you add in all the checksums, error correcting code, and other data to make the system robust, you'd probably end up with a 10-minute video just to transmit a few hundred bytes of data. You'd do better to do something clever with the subtitles.

Steganography works quite well when you have access to the actual file, preferably in its entirety. This technique might even work under controlled conditions. But I seriously doubt that one could make it work robustly in the real world. (If you want to consider that a challenge and prove me wrong by making it work, by all means.)
Re:Lolzers. by ememisya · 2013-05-07 06:21 · Score: 1

I'm sure Youtube will _never_ notice this and your foolproof plan will be good for all time.
You might be OK with some steganography, but otherwise they will thwart you if more than a few people do this.
What about downloading pamphlets, or videos without the need for internet connection? I can see this being used in super markets, download using your camera, no more contracts with cell service providers. Before FireSheep, Facebook didn't serve https that willingly, either way it's good for ever improving security of the internet.
Re:Lolzers. by Rhacman · 2013-05-07 06:26 · Score: 1

Hopefully if people do this they will at least have the decency to flag the videos as private. If I find myself directed to a video that is clearly just a dummy video for conveying steganography I'll be among those hitting the "report" button.

--
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
Re:Lolzers. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 06:32 · Score: 0

Making the videos private never entered your mind?
Re:Lolzers. by ememisya · 2013-05-07 07:01 · Score: 2

Actually QR codes are pretty efficient in quickly being read and written, they also pass through most of YouTube's re-encoding procedures. Might be something they want to filter for. The thoughts this should spark would be downloading data using a camera (no service provider necessary), and how data is data no matter how you dress it up in the end.
Re:Lolzers. by eth1 · 2013-05-07 07:06 · Score: 1

There is also no need for QR codes to be used, thats another example of naive use. It would actually be vastly more efficient to encode the data differently, but, encoding in such ways as to not be easily detected and removed by youtube could be tricky. However, if you could find a way to minimally disguise the data so it just looks like hours of terribly boring video (like, video of your pet fish)....
Shit you could probably just keep re-uploading the same fish video with differently encoded data and new names....nobody is going to examine hours of fish swimming to determine where the loop is or whether the two videos are of the same loop.
Or you could just train your fish to swim to the right, unless the tank is electrified, then swim left, conveniently encoding whatever you need.
Re:Lolzers. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 07:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Depending on the decoding speed, this may be a good way to include tablet and phone apps with movie purchases. Just tack it on where the movie previews are. Not everybody has reliable broadband, especially those that don't stream their video.
Re:Lolzers. by ememisya · 2013-05-07 07:47 · Score: 1

This guy sees what I'm talking about :) Mod this guy up!
Re:Lolzers. by ememisya · 2013-05-07 07:50 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, I don't think you could count on steganography. YouTube transcodes, resizes, and manipulates the raw video fifty ways till sunday - whatever information you've stored in the frames could easily be lost or corrupted.

In the case of using YouTube for this, you are right. In the case of using this method for advertisement you are wrong. QRCodes can recover up to 30% of data corruption, which is exactly why this was chosen. Take out the encryption, add in parity files and viola you have a MovieGoesApp, scan here to see the latest preview for the upcoming Batman movie! Possibilities are endless.
Re: Lolzers. by ceoyoyo · 2013-05-07 11:19 · Score: 2

There are steganographic algorithms that are highly resistant to encoding and rencoding. They're mostly of interest for secretly watermarking photos and video. The movie studios probably use such an algorithm for watermarking preview discs now so they can trace leaks.
Steganography on YouTube would be moderately interesting - it's low efficiency but hidden. QR code videos are just stupid. They're very low efficiency and right out in the open. And if the goal is just to steal space from Google, there are better ways to do it.
Re: Lolzers. by aiht · 2013-05-07 14:50 · Score: 1

And if the goal is just to steal space from Google, there are better ways to do it.
Indeed! Ways such as Google Drive: 5GB.
Or GMail: already over 10GB and counting.
And that's just per account.
Re: Lolzers. by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-05-08 08:03 · Score: 1

I recall a program I found once that gave you a folder on your computer, and anything you put in it was split into appropriate sized .rar files, and attached to emails, and sent to your gmail account and stashed in a folder. Think Dropbox, only using gmail as storage. It was ugly, but it worked. Don't know if its still around.

--
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Re: Lolzers. by Man+Eating+Duck · 2013-05-08 08:38 · Score: 1

I recall a program I found once that gave you a folder on your computer, and anything you put in it was split into appropriate sized .rar files, and attached to emails, and sent to your gmail account and stashed in a folder. Think Dropbox, only using gmail as storage. It was ugly, but it worked. Don't know if its still around.
Behold GmailFS. I tried it out with a throwaway account, it was amusing, but not very practical.
Other examples of quirky abuse of online services for filesystems are the various url shortener file systems, such as BitlyFS, as url shortener services can store fairly long strings accessible through a short key. Haven't tried any of those, but the principle should work as long as the service don't block you for anomalous access patterns.

--
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)

DMCA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 04:39 · Score: 0

Until you get hit by a DMCA Takedown notice and your files are gone forever

a bit too blatant by Trepidity · 2013-05-07 04:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you start uploading videos to YouTube with nothing but frames of QR codes, you're pretty likely to have your account closed and the videos deleted.

It would be more robust if you made the video look like something that could plausibly be on YouTube as a "normal" video, even if it's something really boring. Probably especially if it's something really boring. Record one of your pets and use the low-order bits of the video and/or audio to steganographically include some data.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Re:a bit too blatant by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 04:44 · Score: 0

The low-order bits are likely to be scrambled when YouTube converts, scales and recodes your video.
Re:a bit too blatant by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Which can be avoided if you follow their documentation.
Encodings which match their specifications won't be re-encoded (only the down-scaled versions will).
Re:a bit too blatant by Bigby · 2013-05-07 05:22 · Score: 1

All you need is a way to determine a key that could be used given the source and encrypted target. This would be a little different than cracking an encrypted document, because the source is known.
That way you can turn anything into "Risk Astley - Never Going To Give You Up". There would just be a generated key that can be used to decrypt it to your original source.
Re:a bit too blatant by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:47 · Score: 1

So this is what this is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZZ7oFKsKzY
The world makes sense again.
Re:a bit too blatant by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 06:19 · Score: 0

The key would have to be as long as the plaintext in the general case for such an approach, so distributing the key is no easier than distributing the original message.
Re:a bit too blatant by jones_supa · 2013-05-07 06:19 · Score: 1

A local encoder might still mess up things enough.
Re:a bit too blatant by ememisya · 2013-05-07 06:22 · Score: 1

If you start uploading videos to YouTube with nothing but frames of QR codes, you're pretty likely to have your account closed and the videos deleted.
It would be more robust if you made the video look like something that could plausibly be on YouTube as a "normal" video, even if it's something really boring. Probably especially if it's something really boring. Record one of your pets and use the low-order bits of the video and/or audio to steganographically include some data.
You are right, as far as I know, no QRCode detection is happening on YouTube as of yet, perhaps this post will help them improve their security in providing their service.
Re:a bit too blatant by brillow · 2013-05-07 07:33 · Score: 1

I dunno if Google would care. People have been using gmail as online storage since the beginning and Google didn't seem to care. Your 10gb video is not going to appreciably change Google's total bandwidth usage.
Re:a bit too blatant by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 07:42 · Score: 0

Stenography would happen after encoding.
Re:a bit too blatant by mikael · 2013-05-07 07:43 · Score: 1

The world's longest abstract art painting.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:a bit too blatant by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 10:30 · Score: 0

YouTube will throw many of the low order bits away as part of reencoding the video. You'll need to be more clever. Try something that takes advantage of the MPEG encoding model.
Re:a bit too blatant by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-05-08 08:05 · Score: 1

why? there are 10 hour long videos of looping nyancat on youtube, a guy who has a channel with nothing but videos of him silently smoking cigars, and all manner of mindlessly useless other content. I doubt YouTube would care at all if you make boring videos of QR codes.

--
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Re:a bit too blatant by Man+Eating+Duck · 2013-05-08 08:50 · Score: 1

Stenography would happen after encoding.
I don't know too much about this, but wouldn't steganography happen *during* encoding? If you could hack an encoder to control the lsb in the *decoded* stream, you could add another layer of obfuscation by uploading two completely different videos, one with random lsb, and the other with your signal xor'ed with the lsb of the first. I'm no expert, but to me, that doesn't seem vulnerable even to statistical attacks (assuming there is a significant amount of candidate videos to start with), especially if you encrypt your signal prior to encoding. I'd be happy if a crypto expert slashdotter would comment on this :)

--
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)

right... by Ian+0x57 · 2013-05-07 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

sure..until they compress it for you or change formats or ..... and screw it up.

Re:right... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 04:47 · Score: 0

Correct. They transcode the video when you upload. I tried to do the same thing with AOL buddy icons back in the day but they reformat and resize on upload so you lose your stego
Re:right... by wvmarle · 2013-05-07 04:52 · Score: 1

Just make sure that those QR frames ARE your data. Who cares if someone else reads it, too? It's encrypted, after all.
Re:right... by aardvarkjoe · 2013-05-07 04:55 · Score: 2

sure..until they compress it for you or change formats or ..... and screw it up.
This isn't steganography. As long as you create your video such that the artifacts of compression won't make your codes unreadable, it doesn't matter if Youtube does something like that.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:right... by Tarlus · 2013-05-07 05:24 · Score: 2

QR's will look the same regardless of video format. If the resolution gets really scrunched down or if frame rates get jacked up in the conversion process, then it could be a wasted effort, but YouTube's internal conversion algorithms seem to be pretty effective these days. ...wait, am I defending the idea behind this article?

--
/* No Comment */
Re:right... by Psyborgue · 2013-05-07 05:32 · Score: 3, Informative

QR codes error correction is quite resilient. Even with heavy spatial/temporal compression, the data should still be recoverable. There are far better ways of hiding data than this, however.
Re:right... by Anubis+IV · 2013-05-07 05:35 · Score: 2

We're not talking about steganography or some other form of hiding data in a delicate manner that can be broken when typical practices like those you've cited are applied. We're talking about having frames that consist entirely of a QR codes, which should be reasonably resistant to compression, format changes, lowered resolutions, and other issues of that sort. So long as the QR code can still be easily made out, you can still get your data out.
Clearly, if they compressed it so heavily that it was just a gray mess, it'd be a problem, but I don't think that's likely to be an issue.
Re:right... by CrashandDie · 2013-05-07 06:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Have you ever used a QRCode? Ever noticed that most algorithms don't recognise the QRCode when it's sharpest and level with your screen? Usually, you don't have the time to have the code be level, or in focus, before the algorithm picks it up.
That's because QRCode are nigh indestructible. They could add a watermark and the code would most probably still be readable (depending on the level of error correction you apply when encoding).
For example, I took one of the Wikimedia QRCode examples, and drew on it. It still worked. Then I skewed the image using MS Paint. It still worked. Then I decided to go from 172 pixels to 86 pixels (using MS Paint's resize function). It still worked (zoomed to either 100% or 200%). Then I decided to "reduce its resolution", so to speak, by resizing that reduced image to 200%, then back to 50%, then back to 200%, etc for 4 or 5 times, until I ended up with this. It still worked.
Now, I'm sure that I *wanted* this to work. There will be dozens of cases where even the most stupid tear of paper or poor lighting will prevent that QRCode from being decoded. But somehow, I don't think that YouTube's HD video encoding will be much of an issue for QRCodes.
Tested with QR Droid on a Wiko Cink King, scanning off a 23" 1080p screen.
Re:right... by TheRealMindChild · 2013-05-07 06:18 · Score: 1

I think the principle of the QRCode blocks is like a bar code or those fill-in-the-bubble tests; If it isn't almost completely filled, it is considered empty

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Re:right... by ememisya · 2013-05-07 07:13 · Score: 1

QR codes error correction is quite resilient. Even with heavy spatial/temporal compression, the data should still be recoverable. There are far better ways of hiding data than this, however.
Mod this guy up :)
Re:right... by mikael · 2013-05-07 07:46 · Score: 1

That looks like some kind of cellular automata spiral algorithm with maybe three or four different cell types.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:right... by Psyborgue · 2013-05-07 08:34 · Score: 1

YouTube doesn't even re-compress if you upload a compliant video so you could easily do a verification at home before uploading. And yes. I too agree it's a stupid idea.
Re:right... by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-05-08 08:14 · Score: 1

also, I assume there is some sort of checksum business, like the check digit in barcodes. I know from fooling with QR codes at work with a sharpie that (in my experience) if you start filling in blocks in the lower right corner, you get a failure to read far faster than filling blocks anywhere else in the code, which leads me to assume that the check digit equivilent is in that region of the QRcode.

--
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.

I already have a better solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 04:42 · Score: 5, Funny

I store mine in the Linux source code comments. Nobody has ever noticed.

Re:I already have a better solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 06:49 · Score: 0

you mean your hardcoded string p*rn on 0xB16B00B5 ? :D
Re: I already have a better solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 08:42 · Score: 0

Nope, I'm more of an A55 man.
Re:I already have a better solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 11:17 · Score: 0

Get back to coding, Linus!

Great! Now Al-Qaeda has YouTube technology. :-( by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2013-05-07 04:42 · Score: 2

Just add encryption. Hide in plain site. A new way for spies and terrorist to communicate! Reminds me of the Conet Project. More at Wikipedia. It's fascinating listening to the weird shortwave.

Awesome Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 04:44 · Score: 0

Until your files get taken down with a DMCA. Good luck trying to prove it's not just background music in your baby video.

Aha! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 04:45 · Score: 0

I finally have a safe place to store all of my downloaded youtube videos! It's nearly time for my master plan to be set into action! With this I can uh...I really didn't think this through. Whatever I'll figure out the evil part later. Just be afraid MAFIAA because now I can hide content on youtube.

What's the benefit? by Picass0 · 2013-05-07 04:45 · Score: 1

You'll need a specialized client to trap this information with a barcode scanner, buffer and really good QR read times. And then what? What is gained using this method for file distribution vs. downloading from one of the bazzilion free web file hosting sites?

Re:What's the benefit? by CastrTroy · 2013-05-07 04:56 · Score: 1

Well, you could just use one of the common plugins to download the video file and process it later. Although I do agree with you on the whole thing being a little bit elaborate for something that's basically available for free. Google drive gives you 5 GB for free. MS Skydrive gives you 7GB. that already easily surpasses the 10 GB proposed by this method. Get multiple accounts for each (it's not difficult) and get as much cloud storage as you want for free.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:What's the benefit? by networkBoy · 2013-05-07 05:23 · Score: 2

Ah, but this *could* be a good one to many broadcast of information. Have a botnet receive C&C directives this way?
You could even post the QR code in a corner of the video, or embed it in the video data as an alpha channel.

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

reprimand? by cornjones · 2013-05-07 04:45 · Score: 1

I wonder if he will have to pay for the (already terrilbly) slashdotted vt.edu servers that have just melted between serving a wiki entry and video posted there.

Uhhh.... no. by scottbomb · 2013-05-07 04:49 · Score: 1

Sounds like a lot of trouble for something that can be easily and more securely done with any several of free services like Dropbox, Box, Google Drive, Windows SkyDrive, Ubuntu One, etc.

Re:Uhhh.... no. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 04:56 · Score: 0

All of those sites require an account, and a login, to access the data. YouTube is available anywhere, to anyone, and would not (normally) be blocked by firewalls or examined by DPI.
-- MdNght - HaXor --
Re:Uhhh.... no. by PIBM · 2013-05-07 05:08 · Score: 1

I've seen youtube blocked much more than multiple free or not file drop services in corporate firewalls..
Re:Uhhh.... no. by Megane · 2013-05-07 05:23 · Score: 1

I've got a web proxy that blocks any page with t-w-i-t-t-e-r or y-o-u-t-u-b-e anywhere in the URL. I mean, I have no love for twits twitting, but that's going to far. I had to hack the URL just to see this thread.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Uhhh.... no. by Tarlus · 2013-05-07 05:27 · Score: 1

A simpler approach would be to use a free web hosting service, and drop your encrypted data in there. Easy access from anywhere without needing to sign in.

--
/* No Comment */
Re:Uhhh.... no. by camperdave · 2013-05-07 06:06 · Score: 1

Free web hosting... Yeah... sticks out like a sore thumb in a browse log, though.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Uhhh.... no. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 07:34 · Score: 0

I've got a web proxy that blocks any page with t-w-i-t-t-e-r or y-o-u-t-u-b-e anywhere in the URL. I mean, I have no love for twits twitting, but that's going to far. I had to hack the URL just to see this thread.
I'm HOPING you meant "I'm behind a web proxy that blocks...". It's the phrasing that means the difference between "I'm at work and this proxy blocks any normal means of accessing this" and "I intentionally shot myself in the foot by installing an overly restrictive web proxy just to prove some useless point about Twitter and YouTube I came up with in my isolated NERD CAVE!!!!!, but it's still your fault for putting interesting information in a URL from which I blocked myself".
Re:Uhhh.... no. by Tarlus · 2013-05-07 07:59 · Score: 1

So do YouTube videos. But is that really a problem?

--
/* No Comment */
Re:Uhhh.... no. by fisted · 2013-05-07 08:31 · Score: 1

You had to modify the URL, which you didn't see thanks to your proxy. After that, you suddenly saw the URL and clicked it. Seems legit.

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!

10GB Free, Wow! by s1d3track3D · 2013-05-07 04:51 · Score: 2

I don't have the time to list how many cloud storage providers offer (at least) 10GB free

Re:10GB Free, Wow! by second_coming · 2013-05-07 04:59 · Score: 1

create a few dropbox accounts, piss easy
Re:10GB Free, Wow! by ag0ny · 2013-05-07 05:13 · Score: 3, Informative

Have you been hiding under a rock for the last few months? Mega gives you 50GB for free.

--
My site
Re:10GB Free, Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:20 · Score: 1

Sometimes I really wonder why I still bother coming here, other than to watch blind people discuss the sunset and deaf people argue about music...
Ever thought that maybe YouTube is capable of holding more than one video at a time, and that the 10GB is per video?
No?
Thought not...
Re:10GB Free, Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 06:15 · Score: 0

Maybe learn how to read?
Re:10GB Free, Wow! by ememisya · 2013-05-07 06:23 · Score: 1

This is more about seeing YouTube side by side with Mega Upload than actually YouTube offering you that same service, which isn't what YouTube was intended for.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by i_ate_god · 2013-05-07 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

what ever happened to the hacker mentality these days?

they would do it, BECAUSE THEY CAN. A reason so valid that it I shouldn't have to be here telling you about it.

--
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...

Pssst - Google doesn't actually make this hard by pla · 2013-05-07 04:53 · Score: 2

Or you could just, y'know, upload it to Google Docs and make it public, without playing all the games.

For small amounts of data (in the few-GB range), you can host crap in a bazillion places online for free. No need to send yourself 400 multi-part uuencoded emails these days to "sneak" it past the storage provider.

This is as idiotic by mapkinase · 2013-05-07 04:53 · Score: 0

This is as idiotic as storing data on DNA.

So go ahead.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.

Re:This is as idiotic by SJHillman · 2013-05-07 05:16 · Score: 1

Bacterial DNA data storage actually makes more sense because each time the bacteria reproduces, it makes a copy of your data. It also actively corrects data corruption because mutated DNA is more likely to result in that particular organism dying, so to get your data back, you just need to read a bunch of samples and discard the ones that are not like the rest.
Re:This is as idiotic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:42 · Score: 0

But the data storage DNA is likely to be "junk DNA", and mutations happen constantly. What is needed is robust error correction in any DNA data storage.
Re:This is as idiotic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:53 · Score: 1

And you can conveniently store your porn on your own junk.
Re:This is as idiotic by fisted · 2013-05-07 08:34 · Score: 1

I have lots of pics of kitten. The bacteria constructed from my data will probably the glory of darwin.

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!

Re:Great! Now Al-Qaeda has YouTube technology. :-( by Cenan · 2013-05-07 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

First of all, what the fuck is up with using the subject for half the reply? Seriously, cut it out. You people look like retards.

Hiding stuff in plain sight has never been very hard, you don't need youtube for that. Anything connected to the 'net is pretty much hidden in plain sight, no need to involve a millions-of-users-per-month website, when a simple IP distributed would do the trick just as fine.
Encryption is no secret, no matter what the feds tell you, the ban en exports of encryption algorithms has not made the rest of the world go sans encryption. The example in the article is about the dumbest security idea since, shit i don't know... ever?

--
... whatever ...

DataMatrix better by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:00 · Score: 0

You could get more data in there with DataMatrix 2D barcode instead of QRCode.

Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:01 · Score: 0

There goes my storage system now.

But really, you could still store loads of data without being noticed, private accounts with text on screen, computer voice singing your data, AR procedural markers that parsed in a certain way leads to a scene being constructed, etc.
Being a moron filling every frame with QR won't work. Also, create your system pretty much secures you against scans for public methods.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Are you Captain Kirk? This reminds me of the only good reason to climb a mountain.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:15 · Score: 1

Pssst....we're over at Hacker News these days.

Genius idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:18 · Score: 0

How long would it take to re-encode Game of Thrones as video using this QR code technique and upload it to Youtube?

I found a QSR code burned into my toast by AndyKron · 2013-05-07 05:23 · Score: 5, Funny

I found a QSR code burned into my toast. My cellphone read it, and it said "Jesus"

Re:I found a QSR code burned into my toast by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 06:25 · Score: 0

Clearly His Noodly Appendage put it there as a test of your faith.

This is like by meerling · 2013-05-07 05:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Using Youtube to store your files is like using your neighbors car for storing you beer without asking. Odds are that one of these days it won't be there when you really want it.

Re:This is like by real-modo · 2013-05-07 12:12 · Score: 1

Thanks! /. has been sadly deficient in car analogies recently. Faith restored.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-05-07 05:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Are you Captain Kirk? This reminds me of the only good reason to climb a mountain.

After your first sentence, I thought that was his remark on the subject of why bang genetically or even anatomically incompatible aliens.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Static? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:35 · Score: 0

I love the idea, what a great proof as well. That was pretty cool. What about doing this without the corner markers at the beginning of a short film it would appear as if you were trying to be trendy with some static at the beginning and end. You could make it a couple of frames. Granted you'd have to screen grab the bits and then add your corner markers.

Video Storage by Hoch · 2013-05-07 05:35 · Score: 1

I'll bet it is really good at video storage!

--
2*31*37*263

Here you go by alexru · 2013-05-07 05:37 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArVid 2 Gb per VHS tape.

I already coded that thing for myself by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:38 · Score: 0

Last year i had that same idea, it became more than just a QR code but a full blown remote boock device driver for linux which i can boot virtual machines from.

I don't have the skills to transform this into an EFI module yet. But booting a whole computer using Youtube as a hard drive should be feasible.

Data should be properly encrypted and kept secret, the encryption key stored inside the TMP chip and hopefully then you just have to remember the video ID for every of your hard drives.

One could even implement a RAID version of that for load balancing fragments of the same data over multiple providers for better secrecy and resilience.

Also i can assume one could use that as NFS mounts or whatever for self expanding cloud storage purposes.

Re:I already coded that thing for myself by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-08 01:27 · Score: 0

That is very interesting and a nice hack, but wouldn't bandwidth be a problem? I get pissed at my local machine, an old p4. I'm assuming that it's small hard drive and chip cache is what slows it down. Would using Google's servers with their obviously larger caches offset the latency on the network? Encrypting would just make this process slower I assume.
I think I hear a wooshing sound.

Now Trending by puddingebola · 2013-05-07 05:39 · Score: 1

Now Trending on Youtube, user account information from the Playstation Network. 1,000,000 views.

Re: Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:41 · Score: 1

Apropos that, have you considered storing 10gb of data as uuencoded hackernews comments?

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by Psyborgue · 2013-05-07 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because it's not a particularly clever or interesting "because we can".

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by MMC+Monster · 2013-05-07 05:49 · Score: 1

Just checked out the website.

The articles are quite similar to the ones here, but minimal discussion on articles from days ago.

Also I'm personally not a fan of the advertise placement on that site (which is also the reason I don't read techdirt much).

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.

R Tape loading error, 0:1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 05:53 · Score: 0

Why bother with QR codes, when you can upload anything with ZX-Spectrum tape as soundtrack.

Been there done that (kind of) :) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 06:02 · Score: 0

I had a similar idea a couple of years ago, but for data transfer between mobile devices, and hacked together a prototype for the Over the Air hackathon - albeit without the cloud storage angle, which is a nice twist. Head here to check it out: http://stephendnicholas.com/archives/310

Thumbs up for shameless self promotion?

Been there done that (kind of)... by stephendnicholas · 2013-05-07 06:07 · Score: 2

I had a similar idea a couple of years ago, but for data transfer between mobile devices, and hacked together a prototype for the Over the Air hackathon - albeit without the cloud storage angle, which is a nice twist. Head here to check it out: http://stephendnicholas.com/archives/310 Thumbs up for shameless self promotion? Even more shameless now not anonymous :)

Re:Been there done that (kind of)... by Cormacus · 2013-05-07 06:56 · Score: 1

Your last comment on the site was in 2011 and you mention you've gone further with the code. Care to share how far you got? Source available?

--
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!

VHS by kliklik · 2013-05-07 06:12 · Score: 1

In the old days there was a system for AMIGA for storing data on VHS tapes. Quick googling finds this: http://www.hugolyppens.com/VBS.html They claim a gigantic storage capacity of 85MB of data per hour of video :)

--
guru in training

Re:VHS by nanahuatzin · 2013-05-07 06:40 · Score: 1

yesss i still have some VHS tapes with data...mmhh maybe its time to back up them to another media...

Re:Great! Now Al-Qaeda has YouTube technology. :-( by Algae_94 · 2013-05-07 06:13 · Score: 1

I'm inclined to agree with your rant about using the comment for half the reply, but at least the dude you replied to had a complete sentence in the subject. Splitting a sentence between the subject and the beginning of the comment is the worst.

10Gb? by wonkey_monkey · 2013-05-07 06:13 · Score: 1

Using this technique one could easily store 10GB of data to be available anywhere in the world, and completely free.

Which orifice did that number get pulled out of?

Also, "easily"? Compared to, say, setting up a couple of Gmail accounts and sending yourself some attachments?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Unreliable ToS dependent data storage by istartedi · 2013-05-07 06:19 · Score: 1

Your data is compressed so you have to work around that, and it can be removed at any time if they believe you are violating the Terms of Service. Almost certainly, this does. It's not worth the hassle. It certainly isn't worth it for anything serious. Just go to one of the many existing free storage sites and encrypt the files before you put them there if it's something private. If you need more offsite storage, stick a crow bar in your wallet and pay for it, cheapskates.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by repvik · 2013-05-07 06:20 · Score: 1

Storing a lot of data on Youtube can be done. It can be done in a hacky and good way - and it can be done in a shitty, QR-code, spacewasting way.

Great! Now Cenan is upset with us. :) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 06:26 · Score: 0

First of all, what the fuck is up with using the subject for half the reply? Seriously, cut it out. You people look like retards.

No, we don't :D

Interesting by TobesWSU · 2013-05-07 06:26 · Score: 1

Interesting. Verrrry iintersting... but also stupid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qf6Sv3A9zs

Re:Interesting by ememisya · 2013-05-07 07:39 · Score: 1

Interesting. Verrrry iintersting... but also stupid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qf6Sv3A9zs

ROFL This cracked me up. To store it in YouTube, is very stupid. It's not very stupid if you consider nobody can download apps in those video ads in WalMart. You walk past an aisle, a voice alerts you, "Would you like to download our social app? Point your smartphone here to begin downloading." There is one market for the app which downloads QRCode videos, and another for all the products they sign up with. There is money to be made here if you can look at it with the right glasses.

You're totally right about the title reply! by BlackPignouf · 2013-05-07 06:26 · Score: 2

Mod parent up! :)

eir comment in the subject. :-( by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 06:26 · Score: 1

No, I think the worse is the people who finish th

amiga Video Back Up System... ? by nanahuatzin · 2013-05-07 06:34 · Score: 2

ahhh! this made me remember my old ( ancient?) amiga 500 computer... circa 1988. It was the day of 30 mb hard drives, so the idea to use video to store info was attractive, so it came the "Video BAck Up System". http://www.hugolyppens.com/VBS.html You connected the video output of you amiga to a VHS tape recorder (beta also could be used). The software let you selected which parts of your hard drive wish to back up, so when you were ready, the computer would record bands of black and white video to tape. The vhs tape could hold... errr 85MB per hour, and that was a lot!!! The interesting part was restoring the backup, it was connected to the serial port... so probably this was the main limitation of the system. It was a very interesting hack :) I still have some VHS tape with data...

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 06:37 · Score: 0

what ever happened to the hacker mentality these days?

they would do it, BECAUSE THEY CAN. A reason so valid that it I shouldn't have to be here telling you about it.

And there you are with all the other "old school" hackers, staring at closets of fucking pointless hacks, all brought to you by the awesome justification of "why the hell not".

In the meantime, there are the rest of us who have better things to do than try and use a video streaming service to find a place to store data on the internet. I'm pretty sure there's just a few other solutions out there to achieve that rather pathetic goal.

"Easily"?? by AC-x · 2013-05-07 07:17 · Score: 1

Using this technique one could easily store 10GB of data to be available anywhere in the world

It's a fun little hacking project for sure, but I would not call this "easily" when you have things like dropbox or google docs to store, you know, actual files in.

Re:"Easily"?? by ememisya · 2013-05-07 07:44 · Score: 1

Using this technique one could easily store 10GB of data to be available anywhere in the world
It's a fun little hacking project for sure, but I would not call this "easily" when you have things like dropbox or google docs to store, you know, actual files in.
Very true. The point to be made here is that YouTube is technically also the same service, doesn't matter if you are hosting a website for audio storage, you are a data storage cloud. This is a minor headache for YouTube, and a valuable opportunity for the advertising industry.
Re:"Easily"?? by AC-x · 2013-05-07 08:12 · Score: 1

The point to be made here is that YouTube is technically also the same service, doesn't matter if you are hosting a website for audio storage, you are a data storage cloud. This is a minor headache for YouTube, and a valuable opportunity for the advertising industry
It's not really the same on a technical level tho, because YouTube destructively modifies your data (re-encoding the video) while filelockers like dropbox allow you to retrieve your original data as-is. Sure they're both examples of "cloud storage", but one actively modifies your data while the other doesn't.
Plus I can't imagine how this would be a "minor headache" for Youtube or even less how it's a "valuable opportunity" for the advertising industry, nobody's going to store files on Youtube because, if nothing else, they'd end up being many many times larger to download than the original file was to begin with.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by wagnerrp · 2013-05-07 07:36 · Score: 1

Wouldn't being anatomically incompatible imply that you can't?

Old Idea by Lumpy · 2013-05-07 07:41 · Score: 1

Had a device from radio shack back in the 90's that did the same thing but on VHS tapes. It just created a video of the data to record or play from any VCR.

Granted you can pack the data tighter now, but QR code is not the answer, not enough data density.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-05-07 07:51 · Score: 1

Are you Captain Kirk? This reminds me of the only good reason to climb a mountain.

(Oh, and I forgot to add that the relevant quote from The Worst Star Trek Movie Ever actually isn't "because I can" but rather "because it's there".)

--
Ezekiel 23:20

available anywhere? by chentiangemalc · 2013-05-07 07:58 · Score: 1

"available anywhere in the world" YouTube is not available everywhere in the world. China for example.

No by FuzzNugget · 2013-05-07 07:59 · Score: 1

No one has.

Money to be Made by ememisya · 2013-05-07 08:00 · Score: 1

QRCode videos. A new way of controlling data flow where the range is the range of the camera. Imagine you go to a midnight release, the ads come up and says, do you have our ____ app? Point it to the screen now to download a sneak peek of our upcoming movie. You're walking past the car repair section of your favorite super market, an ad alerts you, want to save money on all your car repairs? Sign up now, using _____ app to download our pamphlet. Wouldn't you want to be the guy who owned the QRCode Video reader app to sign up with all the advertising agencies? No internet connection? No problem. Anyways, I thought this was a good idea, felt like sharing.

GoogleFS by jgtg32a · 2013-05-07 08:36 · Score: 1

Reminds me of Google file system, basically turns you gmail account into a remote share.

And? by ThePeices · 2013-05-07 09:11 · Score: 1

10GB of online storage completely free? What, like services like Dropbox, Google Drive, Mega etc?

Why go through all the hassle of encrypting your data as a QR code video, when you could just upload your encrypted files to one of these fine services?

This reminds me of... by montre16 · 2013-05-07 09:12 · Score: 1

This story that was on Hackaday a while back, where an audio track was hidden in an image: http://hackaday.com/2012/02/27/this-image-contains-a-hidden-audio-track/ If, for some reason, one were seriously trying to hide data in this way and have it go undetected, would it not be a much better idea to combine this approach with the approach described in the above HaD post?

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 09:19 · Score: 1

Wouldn't being anatomically incompatible imply that you can't?

I'm pretty sure if there is a hole, you can bang it.

Well why not by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2013-05-07 09:24 · Score: 1

When I was a kid I used a VCR as data storage for my Amiga. It didn't have 10 gigs or the "anywhere in the world" aspect unless I carried the tape with me...

--
Mostly random stuff.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-05-07 09:26 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure if there is a hole, you can bang it.

...which is why they ejected the warp core into the black hole in the 2009 Star Trek movie.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

yeah... by Tom · 2013-05-07 09:40 · Score: 1

...until some bot working for the RIAA thinks it's a really funky music video and issues an automated takedown notice that YouTube automatically honours, taking your precious files offline.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Mathematically improbable. by Killerfishmonkey · 2013-05-07 10:24 · Score: 0

Let us say you encoded a 24P 9 hour video of QR codes. (maximum size available is QR code version 40 177*177 with correction level L) at 23,648 bytes of data source from http://www.qrcode.com/en/about/version.htm..... using math you get 23648 bytes for 24 frames is 24*23648 = 56752 bytes per second for a Minuit is 60 seconds so 56752 * 60 = 34053120 bytes per minuit 60 minuits an hour means 34053120*60 = 2043187200 bytes per hour 9 hours of video so 2043187200*9 = 18388684800 bytes Bytes to gigabytes you get 17.13 GB might as well store the same data on a 50 GB bluray disk a system to read and decode QR data for 24 frames per second would be far more costly than a bluray writer.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-07 10:57 · Score: 0

I don't know about you, but being genetically incompatible seems like a reason TO bang an alien.

Why stop there? by relive.mn · 2013-05-07 12:21 · Score: 1

Why stop there? Following in the general direction of TFA I present to you my kitten pics archive: { "fluffy.png": "59 6f 75 20 72 65 61 6c 6c 79 20 6e 65 65 64 20 74 6f 20 67 65 74 20 61 20 6c 69 66 65", "haters.png": "49 20 6d 65 61 6e 20 53 45 52 49 4f 55 53 4c 59 21 0a" }

Slashdot Mirror

Using YouTube For File Storage

193 comments