1 - Remove specified file based content and similar copies - doable, and reckless if not actioned by hosting providers.
2 - Proactively remove unspecified content of abhorrent violent nature - difficult, not reliable, and moot whether required under the legislation for hosting providers. Arguably sets a standard above recklessness for hosting providers. Likely required under the act for social media but not for hosting providers. Make it a condition of terms of use, and the issue goes away, imo. I am not a lawyer. This is not expert advice. Kind regards Paul Wilkins On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 11:55, Scott Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > I feel like legislation will compel tech companies to implement human > screening in some capacity, and there will be huge downsides to that - I > mean, which is more likely: > > a) screening team members are offered abundant mental health support > resources, given follow-through on reporting (that video you flagged last > year resulted in a conviction and a jail sentence, congratulations!) and > are limited to short periods... > > or: > > b) screening team members are a minimum wage disposable/contractor/gig > economy workforce, desperate for any income, performance tracked to the > extreme (we require 55 minutes of video content viewed per hour) and > discarded when they inevitably burn out? > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 11:45, Nick Stallman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I didn't know Tineye could tell if an image was violent or not. >> >> The existing systems work for copyright purposes, finding a similar match. >> This works to some extent currently, and can handle recompression, >> scaling, etc... >> It falls apart when an adversary wants to get around it however. >> >> But for the case that this legislation is targeting, i.e. taking down >> violent video, fingerprinting is useless. >> It's brand new content - completely impossible to detect in advance. >> You can only remove the content after it's been distributed for quite >> some time, not pre-emptively which is what the politicians want. >> >> On 10/4/19 11:16 am, Paul Wilkins wrote: >> > https://tineye.com/search/f274c3b49edcca9a6d83994a43629445a5ea5a23/ >> > >> > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 11:12, Matt Palmer <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:56:12AM +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote: >> > > Now I would say that for instance, if the eSecurity Director >> > posts the CRC >> > > of a file as being "abhorrent violent" content, and your company >> > doesn't >> > > expeditiously take down that material, expect problems down the >> > pike. I >> > > doubt a CRC check alone is sufficient. >> > >> > Given that a CRC changes if you modify any bit of the file, and >> > common CRC >> > implementations have a space of either 16 or 32 bits (65,536 and >> > ~4 billion >> > possible values, respectively), "insufficient" doesn't even begin to >> > describe such a scheme. >> > >> > > I'd say a fingerprinting system to >> > > match altered copies of the subject file should be implemented. >> > >> > Once again with this magical "figerprinting" scheme. Nothing like >> > what >> > you're describing actually exists. Further, there's no point in >> each >> > company coming up with their own scheme for calculating this magical >> > fingerprint, because if the eSecurity Director wants to say "take >> down >> > everything like this fingerprint" they have to use the *same* >> > scheme to come >> > up with the same fingerprint. >> > >> > > It doesn't have to work in all cases. >> > >> > It won't work in *any* case. >> > >> > > I am not a lawyer. This is not expert advice. >> > >> > Yes, I think that is quite evident. >> > >> > - Matt >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > AusNOG mailing list >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > AusNOG mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >> -- >> Nick Stallman >> Technical Director >> Email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Phone 02 8039 6820 <tel:0280396820> >> Website www.agentpoint.com.au <https://www.agentpoint.com.au/> >> >> >> Agentpoint <https://www.agentpoint.com.au/> >> Netpoint <https://netpoint.group/> >> >> Level 3, 100 Harris Street, Pyrmont NSW 2009 Facebook >> <https://www.facebook.com/agentpoint/> Twitter >> <https://twitter.com/agentpoint> Instagram >> <https://www.instagram.com/Agentpoint/> Linkedin >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/agentpoint-pty-ltd> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AusNOG mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >> > _______________________________________________ > AusNOG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
