"is there any thing to prevent them from requesting that data from another state where it's allowed to be stored?"
That's the real point. Everyone connected will still be able to get to the same data, from ANY other states. It's just a shell game, to circumvent privacy regulations, by not "storing" the data in Seisint.
It's not being changed to evade state laws; it's being changed to evade one of the pro-privacy arguments, by removing one particular objection based on the state laws.
"Europe is way ahead of the US when it comes to personal privacy."
I also used to think so -- until the EU caved to the U.S. and agreed to start regularly sending all of the EU's travel records to the U.S.
Start following the news on things being done by the EU bureaucracy -- sometimes covertly and against the explicit wishes of the citizenry. Read the handwriting on the wall: more and more, the dominance of the U.S. -- militarily, culturally, politically and economically -- is poisoning the rest of what used to be called the "Free World".
The evolution from the former European "Common Market" for easing trade frictions, to an EU with wider powers -- political powers -- is destined to be recognized someday as a grave error and a disaster for human rights.
"No, it couldn't. All it can prove is that if an image is fake it has been done very well."
I apologize for having phrased it poorly. My point is the following scenario . .. -- Mr.X is arrested for having child porn. -- His defense (recently legitimized by the U.S. Supreme Court) is to say, "The images are digital artifice, no actual children were involved." -- The prosecutor says, "We ran the images through Farid's process, and there's no evidence of alteration. The artifice which you claim is involved, wouldn't have been detectable to the human eye. Therefore, you had no plausible reason to OBSCURE the artifice, since Farid-detectability wouldn't have detracted from the ostensible purpose of having the images. Therefore, your claim of digital artifice is not credible, and I believe the images to be genuine, and so should the jury." -- Barring a convincing explanation from the defendant, the jury might very well convict, in circumstances where a pre-Farid prosecution would be much more likely to fail.
"As I am beginning to understand symptoms of current american legal culture, I can now easily predict some of the future: - raytracing/3D rendering software will become illegal . .."
Well, you're HALF-right, when you say "current"; but whether your prediction comes to pass, depends greatly on what happens in the coming November election. If we can get rid of Inspector Javert -- err, excuse me, Attorney General John Ashcroft -- then there's hope for improvement.
But the problem isn't only in the USA. From what I've been reading, your prediction is equally likely to come true -- I'm sad to say -- in the UK or Australia.
A lot of people have posted about ways to defeat Farid's detection algorithm.
1. I'd never say, "Gee, he's a professor, so let's all just trust him, because he must know what he's doing, right?" But people in his position do tend to be somewhat conservative about pre-publicity, to avoid later looking foolish and damaging their rep. In any case, that's why there's a peer-review process -- which is why I'd put a lot more faith in statements from him, than I would if they came directly from DHS.
2. In the article, Farid himself says, "There is little doubt that counter-measures will be developed to foil our detection schemes. Our hope, however, is that as more authentication tools are developed it will become increasingly more difficult to create convincing digital forgeries."
"Suppose Nikon e.g., were to bury a private key in their cameras and use it to sign the raw image. Then the corresponding public key could be used to verify the image."
Actually, I don't think that'd work, but it raises a very interesting point: when an UN-faked image is published with any kind of intentional alteration for legitimate purposes -- e.g., digital watermarking to protect the creator's copyright -- could that alteration have the unintended side-effect of making it impossible to prove that the image isn't doctored?
NYTimes story link, which is actually more informative and interesting than Dartmouth's own story. In particular, the instant that I started to read the NYT story, I dope-slapped myself for not having thought of the reverse implication of the technology, namely that it might be used to prove that a contraband image (such as child-porn) is NOT faked (and therefore is genuinely illicit).
editor-check
on
IT, Be Free!
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"The 'Developer Declaration of Independence' enjoins corporations, governments, organizations, and individuals to adopt and protect open standards"
in a 'Declaration of Independence', I doubt you meant:
enjoin \en-JOIN\, transitive verb: 1. To direct or impose with authority; to order. 2. To prohibit; to forbid.
perhaps you meant:
exhort v. exhorted, exhorting, exhorts v. tr.
To urge by strong, often stirring argument, admonition, advice, or appeal: exhorted the troops to hold the line.
"The comments this is getting suggest to me that too many people nowadays don't have a clue about manufacturing - and we in the West will surely regret this one day."
Why will we regret having no manufacturing skills? After all, none of the highly-skilled manufacturing *jobs* will be *here* anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
for example:
-- Step #1: Seisint soon will be owned, controlled, and accessible by the European owners of LexisNexis.
-- Step #2: the combination raises the possibility that a huge range of personal information held by LexisNexis could make its way into Matrix
-- Step #3: the system could give law enforcement unprecedented access to details about innocent people
"is there any thing to prevent them from requesting that data from another state where it's allowed to be stored?"
That's the real point. Everyone connected will still be able to get to the same data, from ANY other states. It's just a shell game, to circumvent privacy regulations, by not "storing" the data in Seisint.
"but each state will have software that will only allow them to access information about people in their state?"
NO, THAT'S THE SNEAKY PART. Everyone involved will still be able to get to the same data. It's just a shell game, to circumvent privacy regulations.
It's not being changed to evade state laws; it's being changed to evade one of the pro-privacy arguments, by removing one particular objection based on the state laws.
"Europe is way ahead of the US when it comes to personal privacy."
I also used to think so -- until the EU caved to the U.S. and agreed to start regularly sending all of the EU's travel records to the U.S.
Start following the news on things being done by the EU bureaucracy -- sometimes covertly and against the explicit wishes of the citizenry. Read the handwriting on the wall: more and more, the dominance of the U.S. -- militarily, culturally, politically and economically -- is poisoning the rest of what used to be called the "Free World".
The evolution from the former European "Common Market" for easing trade frictions, to an EU with wider powers -- political powers -- is destined to be recognized someday as a grave error and a disaster for human rights.
Yes, even to someone who didn't know the parties involved, your linked JPG is obviously fake. But I don't understand your point, unless it was humor.
"No, it couldn't. All it can prove is that if an image is fake it has been done very well."
.
I apologize for having phrased it poorly. My point is the following scenario . .
-- Mr.X is arrested for having child porn.
-- His defense (recently legitimized by the U.S. Supreme Court) is to say, "The images are digital artifice, no actual children were involved."
-- The prosecutor says, "We ran the images through Farid's process, and there's no evidence of alteration. The artifice which you claim is involved, wouldn't have been detectable to the human eye. Therefore, you had no plausible reason to OBSCURE the artifice, since Farid-detectability wouldn't have detracted from the ostensible purpose of having the images. Therefore, your claim of digital artifice is not credible, and I believe the images to be genuine, and so should the jury."
-- Barring a convincing explanation from the defendant, the jury might very well convict, in circumstances where a pre-Farid prosecution would be much more likely to fail.
Got it?
"As I am beginning to understand symptoms of current american legal culture, I can now easily predict some of the future: ."
- raytracing/3D rendering software will become illegal . .
Well, you're HALF-right, when you say "current"; but whether your prediction comes to pass, depends greatly on what happens in the coming November election. If we can get rid of Inspector Javert -- err, excuse me, Attorney General John Ashcroft -- then there's hope for improvement.
But the problem isn't only in the USA. From what I've been reading, your prediction is equally likely to come true -- I'm sad to say -- in the UK or Australia.
A lot of people have posted about ways to defeat Farid's detection algorithm.
1. I'd never say, "Gee, he's a professor, so let's all just trust him, because he must know what he's doing, right?" But people in his position do tend to be somewhat conservative about pre-publicity, to avoid later looking foolish and damaging their rep. In any case, that's why there's a peer-review process -- which is why I'd put a lot more faith in statements from him, than I would if they came directly from DHS.
2. In the article, Farid himself says, "There is little doubt that counter-measures will be developed to foil our detection schemes. Our hope, however, is that as more authentication tools are developed it will become increasingly more difficult to create convincing digital forgeries."
"Suppose Nikon e.g., were to bury a private key in their cameras and use it to sign the raw image. Then the corresponding public key could be used to verify the image."
Actually, I don't think that'd work, but it raises a very interesting point:
when an UN-faked image is published with any kind of intentional alteration for legitimate purposes -- e.g., digital watermarking to protect the creator's copyright -- could that alteration have the unintended side-effect of making it impossible to prove that the image isn't doctored?
"I wish there was a more detailed description"
0 &cid=9789556
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11559
"where I can find a copy of the alien photoshopped image?"
If you're referring to the saucer-over-SF image, why don't you inquire at info@WholeEarthMag.com ?
"I'd make a totally black saucer or triangle shaped balloon . . . then have a few accomplices . . . "
I apologize for being so thick, but I'm not following you. Exactly what would be accomplished by doing this?
NYTimes story link, which is actually more informative and interesting than Dartmouth's own story. In particular, the instant that I started to read the NYT story, I dope-slapped myself for not having thought of the reverse implication of the technology, namely that it might be used to prove that a contraband image (such as child-porn) is NOT faked (and therefore is genuinely illicit).
did you read *both* linked articles?
"The 'Developer Declaration of Independence' enjoins corporations, governments, organizations, and individuals to adopt and protect open standards"
in a 'Declaration of Independence', I doubt you meant:
enjoin \en-JOIN\, transitive verb:
1. To direct or impose with authority; to order.
2. To prohibit; to forbid.
perhaps you meant:
exhort
v. exhorted, exhorting, exhorts
v. tr.
To urge by strong, often stirring argument, admonition, advice, or appeal: exhorted the troops to hold the line.
DUPE dupe DUPE dupe
not without permission from the Alpha Centauri RIAA
"and SCO replied (with forked tounge)" [sic]
actually, i'm more interested in hearing the "tounge" jokes
"Hear me! Oh, Hear me! All pay heed! The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen [CRASH]...Oy! ten, ten commandments for all to obey! "
"The comments this is getting suggest to me that too many people nowadays don't have a clue about manufacturing - and we in the West will surely regret this one day."
Why will we regret having no manufacturing skills?
After all, none of the highly-skilled manufacturing *jobs* will be *here* anyhow.
. . . just outsource it to a ten-thousand-worker project team of carvers with hand-tools in some third-world country.
"does anyone know the rate of increase of Linux machines compared to, let's say, 1/2/5 years ago?"
well, 1/2/5 = 0.5/5 = 0.1, x 365 = 36.5 days ago, so I imagine it hasn't changed much.
Made it's name during the Age Of The Mainframe.
Think of it as Playboy for PHBs.
this