Thread out. Kind regards Paul Wilkins
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 12:03, <[email protected]> wrote: > OK… > > > > Tin Eye is for image recognition, not video and it’s more concerned with > duplication… > > From a quick read of their site, it doesn’t appear to be a neural network > or AI… > > Did you bother reading my last post about scalability? > > Even if you used an algorithm like NSFW, it will scan one image every 30 > seconds… > > So at 25fps, that’s 749 images that could contain something potentially > “nasty”… > > Your argument is so flawed that it’s dangerous, especially given the > Luddites currently in power… > > Again, who is going to pay for the development of said “fingerprinting” > and infrastructure? > > The government? They screamed “financial crisis” and now 6 years later the > debt has tripled… > > They have based their PROJECTIONS of a surplus on the volatile commodities > market… > > > > What could possibly go wrong? > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > *From:* AusNOG <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Paul > Wilkins > *Sent:* Wednesday, 10 April 2019 11:17 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions > > > > https://tineye.com/search/f274c3b49edcca9a6d83994a43629445a5ea5a23/ > > > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 11:12, Matt Palmer <[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] > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog > > > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > Virus-free. > www.avg.com > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > <#m_3456065940764660656_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
