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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Part of making a system which allows for making purchases globally extremely easy is screwing with the local economy of any area which largely has access to that system. Just imagine what will happen in the streets if marijuana was legalized and people started selling it online.
Why not simply block people as you are able to in most social networking applications.
If I told you to kill yourself and you do, that means you lack one of the core self preservation skills which is NOT doing everything people tell you to.
If you punish my ability to express my hatred, you are in fact cutting to the root of free speech. I might not like the ideals of other people but without the random factor, we make the assumption that everything we are allowed to say is exactly all we need to say. That's where evolution stops.
It's tragic that the girl killed herself but I do think this case was an exception which does not necessarily need to be a law. People tell me to kill myself on a daily basis on my online gaming console.
By the way I like you very much, and I want you to eat this candy.
-Erdem
Slashdot Mirror
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?
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 :)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Part of making a system which allows for making purchases globally extremely easy is screwing with the local economy of any area which largely has access to that system. Just imagine what will happen in the streets if marijuana was legalized and people started selling it online.
Why not simply block people as you are able to in most social networking applications. If I told you to kill yourself and you do, that means you lack one of the core self preservation skills which is NOT doing everything people tell you to. If you punish my ability to express my hatred, you are in fact cutting to the root of free speech. I might not like the ideals of other people but without the random factor, we make the assumption that everything we are allowed to say is exactly all we need to say. That's where evolution stops. It's tragic that the girl killed herself but I do think this case was an exception which does not necessarily need to be a law. People tell me to kill myself on a daily basis on my online gaming console. By the way I like you very much, and I want you to eat this candy. -Erdem