Disney's evil is just in different fields. They are not a software company, so they have no reason to be evil about software. Their evilness is focused in secretive lobbying for ever-stricter copyright laws and working towards ever-denser media consolidation.
If you're dealing with the type of data that major police agencies are actively hunting for, you'd have to be an idiot not to inform yourself on how to get away with it.
South Korea reached a sort of 'education inflation.' They got educational standards up so high that even the lowest-skilled positions were getting applicants with degrees - and employers went for those with degrees, because even if the degree is in astronomy and the job is in shelf-stacking, having obtained one still shows a level of dedication, devotion and attentiveness. As a result it's practically impossible to get employment without at least the equivilent of a college education in some field - which means absolutely everyone tries to get that education and so perpetuates the problem.
"This happens precisely because people will cheerfully vote to give themselves other people's property."
Or vote to oppress or exterminate anyone who offends them.
This is why the US has the Bill of Rights. Contrast with the events after the French revolution, where they had no such protection. They called it the 'Reign of Terror.'
“Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
"The likelihood of collisions depends only on the effective number of bits in the hash."
True for cryptographic hashes. Perceptual hashes are another thing entirely. You don't compare them for identical values, you look for similar values, usually defined by low hamming distance.
PhotoDNA is a perceptual hash. It's functionality is similar to phash - it might be a bit better, but I wouldn't expect it to be much better. Neither are going to come close to one-in-a-million: I picked a number that was intentionally optimistic.
Cryptographic hashes would eliminate the false positive problem, but are trivial to alter. Beyond trivial: It happens frequently without even intending to do so.
You don't need to look at collisions within the facebook sex - only those involving an image from each set, facebook and child abuse.
We have to take it on trust that the lists are accurate and contain no false entries, because there is no independent confirmation and, given the contents of the lists, just possessing a copy without proper authorisation from law enforcement is a crime in most of the world.
A few pixels change yes. Resistance to the others depends upon algorithm. Flipping or rotating work on the basic form of the phash algorithm. I expect they'll be using something more complicated, probably a composite hash incorporating several functions.
They'll be using a perceptual hash. I recall Microsoft has one that's already in use in law enforcement for this purpose.
If it's a perceptual hash, changing resolution will achieve nothing. Nor will color balance, or jpeg compression. Meme might. Cropping or flipping certainly will though, at least for the phash algorithm I'm familiar with.
No. I use a similar algorithm to deduplicate my obscenely large stash of furry pornography*. It works, but there's a problem.
Let's say that the chance of two unrelated images matching is, say, one in million. Great. That sounds amazing - and it is, that's ridiculously optimistic for phash alone, but we can assume they have something better involving composite hashes.
Now feed into that a sizable database of child abuse imagery - say, ten thousand images. And a copy of the facebook photo library for one day, which is 350 million photos. Yes, that's facebooks claim, do not underestimate the number of compulsive photographers. That's 3,500,000,000,000 comparisons, and at your optimistic one-in-a-million error rate, 3,500,000 false positives to investigate every day.
It can be done, but it's going to need a bit more than just perceptual hash comparisons.
They are not violating the copyright of the short film: They purchased the rights from the original creator. The studio's lawyers aren't so stupid as to leave such a gaping liability when it can be closed by delivering some indy producer a small bag of money and a contract to sign.
The "rabidly anti-tax population" are also rapidly pro-business. The notion of any item of value not being owned by someone makes them feel nauseous - it's almost communism.
I've faced action for copyright infringement on youtube three times.
The first was pretty clear: I'd used an old cartoon, still copyrighted, to practice video restoration. At the time it was a vault-and-underground cartoon only, not legally available - the uncut version of Steamboat Willie, the version where Micky Mouse savagely tortures a series of animals in order to make music from their agonized cries. About a year later Disney republished it and DMCAed mine - possibly because my restoration was actually better than theirs.
The second was another thing entirely: Content-ID picked up some 'infringing' music on another video. The music was actually a recording from so long ago it was expired even in the US - recorded 1914, plus the composer was dead more than 70 years at the time I uploaded it. A collecting agency had still claimed they owned it and submitted it to content-ID though, so youtube detected it as infringing. A DMCA notification can be counter-noticed, but not a content ID match: There is very little in the way of appeal for those, it's an almost entirely automated system
The third was another DMCA notice, though my usage in that case was clearly fair use: I'd taken about thirty seconds from a TV program episode, no sound, in order to make a joke about it. I find it more interesting that the entire episode had been uploaded without permission by other users. This notice didn't come from a bot: I personally offended someone at the studio to the point that, while they didn't bother pulling entire episode uploads, they still thought my joke in sufficiently poor taste to merit removal.
Slashdot Mirror
Disney's evil is just in different fields. They are not a software company, so they have no reason to be evil about software. Their evilness is focused in secretive lobbying for ever-stricter copyright laws and working towards ever-denser media consolidation.
If you're dealing with the type of data that major police agencies are actively hunting for, you'd have to be an idiot not to inform yourself on how to get away with it.
South Korea reached a sort of 'education inflation.' They got educational standards up so high that even the lowest-skilled positions were getting applicants with degrees - and employers went for those with degrees, because even if the degree is in astronomy and the job is in shelf-stacking, having obtained one still shows a level of dedication, devotion and attentiveness. As a result it's practically impossible to get employment without at least the equivilent of a college education in some field - which means absolutely everyone tries to get that education and so perpetuates the problem.
"This happens precisely because people will cheerfully vote to give themselves other people's property."
Or vote to oppress or exterminate anyone who offends them.
This is why the US has the Bill of Rights. Contrast with the events after the French revolution, where they had no such protection. They called it the 'Reign of Terror.'
America can't even remember what socialism means any more.
Hint: It doesn't mean giving subsidies to private insurance companies to cover high-risk patients.
" painted the Tea Party as right wing, racist, radicals."
Not difficult to do when every website allied to the tea party movement couldn't go one month without a new 'Obama is secretly a kenyan muslim' story.
"and the "conservatives/libertarians" can flock to their Utopia."
The United States of Canada.
"absolute republics"
“Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
I got too caught up counting zeros to make sure the math was correct, and forgot to tick the box.
Congratulations, you have invented the perceptual hash. That is exactly how they work.
"The likelihood of collisions depends only on the effective number of bits in the hash."
True for cryptographic hashes. Perceptual hashes are another thing entirely. You don't compare them for identical values, you look for similar values, usually defined by low hamming distance.
I wouldn't even bother.
I'd stick it inside an encrypted rar or 7z file.
You'd have to be a real idiot to upload child abuse images in the clear.
True, but a cryptographic hash gets the collision rate down to the point it can be considered negligible.
PhotoDNA is a perceptual hash. It's functionality is similar to phash - it might be a bit better, but I wouldn't expect it to be much better. Neither are going to come close to one-in-a-million: I picked a number that was intentionally optimistic.
Cryptographic hashes would eliminate the false positive problem, but are trivial to alter. Beyond trivial: It happens frequently without even intending to do so.
You don't need to look at collisions within the facebook sex - only those involving an image from each set, facebook and child abuse.
We have to take it on trust that the lists are accurate and contain no false entries, because there is no independent confirmation and, given the contents of the lists, just possessing a copy without proper authorisation from law enforcement is a crime in most of the world.
What utter moron of a child abuser would upload their pictures to facebook?
They might not be the brightest of criminals, but seriously... they'd have to be pretty dumb to do that.
A few pixels change yes. Resistance to the others depends upon algorithm. Flipping or rotating work on the basic form of the phash algorithm. I expect they'll be using something more complicated, probably a composite hash incorporating several functions.
You are suggesting legalising the possession of child pornography. Only a child abuser would want that!
BURN THE EVIL ONE!
They'll be using a perceptual hash. I recall Microsoft has one that's already in use in law enforcement for this purpose.
If it's a perceptual hash, changing resolution will achieve nothing. Nor will color balance, or jpeg compression. Meme might. Cropping or flipping certainly will though, at least for the phash algorithm I'm familiar with.
Got to caught up in checking the math I forgot to tick the box. Bah. Well, no-one cares anyway.
No. I use a similar algorithm to deduplicate my obscenely large stash of furry pornography*. It works, but there's a problem.
Let's say that the chance of two unrelated images matching is, say, one in million. Great. That sounds amazing - and it is, that's ridiculously optimistic for phash alone, but we can assume they have something better involving composite hashes.
Now feed into that a sizable database of child abuse imagery - say, ten thousand images. And a copy of the facebook photo library for one day, which is 350 million photos. Yes, that's facebooks claim, do not underestimate the number of compulsive photographers. That's 3,500,000,000,000 comparisons, and at your optimistic one-in-a-million error rate, 3,500,000 false positives to investigate every day.
It can be done, but it's going to need a bit more than just perceptual hash comparisons.
*Thus posting as AC.
I tried, and youtube never even responded to my appeal.
They are not violating the copyright of the short film: They purchased the rights from the original creator. The studio's lawyers aren't so stupid as to leave such a gaping liability when it can be closed by delivering some indy producer a small bag of money and a contract to sign.
The "rabidly anti-tax population" are also rapidly pro-business. The notion of any item of value not being owned by someone makes them feel nauseous - it's almost communism.
I've faced action for copyright infringement on youtube three times.
The first was pretty clear: I'd used an old cartoon, still copyrighted, to practice video restoration. At the time it was a vault-and-underground cartoon only, not legally available - the uncut version of Steamboat Willie, the version where Micky Mouse savagely tortures a series of animals in order to make music from their agonized cries. About a year later Disney republished it and DMCAed mine - possibly because my restoration was actually better than theirs.
The second was another thing entirely: Content-ID picked up some 'infringing' music on another video. The music was actually a recording from so long ago it was expired even in the US - recorded 1914, plus the composer was dead more than 70 years at the time I uploaded it. A collecting agency had still claimed they owned it and submitted it to content-ID though, so youtube detected it as infringing. A DMCA notification can be counter-noticed, but not a content ID match: There is very little in the way of appeal for those, it's an almost entirely automated system
The third was another DMCA notice, though my usage in that case was clearly fair use: I'd taken about thirty seconds from a TV program episode, no sound, in order to make a joke about it. I find it more interesting that the entire episode had been uploaded without permission by other users. This notice didn't come from a bot: I personally offended someone at the studio to the point that, while they didn't bother pulling entire episode uploads, they still thought my joke in sufficiently poor taste to merit removal.