4 ms·

I don't want to be confrontational, but I really don't understand the point you're trying to make. Why a neural network, why VLC? I understand that you are sugg

by plus 9y ago

I don't want to be confrontational, but I really don't understand the point you're trying to make. Why a neural network, why VLC? I understand that you are suggesting it would be possible to strip the watermark, but the way you've said it sounds a lot like "create a GUI interface using visual basic, see if I can track an IP address"[0]. Which is to say, you've not said what you would do to defeat it, but how you think it would be implemented... which doesn't really tell us anything about HOW you think it could be defeated. >You just can't effectively watermark data intended for human consumption, our tolerance for intentionally induced noise is too high. If this were true, steganography[1] would be useless in practice (it isn't). I would suggest reading up on digital watermarking[2]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking

drewbuschhorn 9y ago
> I don't intend to be confrontational Of course you do, or you wouldn't end the comment with "I suggest you read up on." Stenography is only useful when it's unknown or impractical to investigate possible payloads, either do to volume of possible hits or lack of knowledge how to decode the payload out of the source. If you tell an opponent: here is the decode technique and here is where the message is likely to be, you've basically defeated your own stenography.
- plus 9y ago
  It is true that my intention was not to be rude. My "I suggest you read up on" comment was in response to your claim: >You just can't effectively watermark data intended for human consumption, our tolerance for intentionally induced noise is too high. Which is simply not true! That kind of misunderstanding suggests that you are unfamiliar with the kinds of digital watermarking that are used TODAY, hence my suggestion that you read up on it. If the comment came off as rude, I certainly apologize, but I stand by the point I was trying to make. >If you tell an opponent: here is the decode technique and here is where the message is likely to be, you've basically defeated your own stenography. I agree with you on this point 100%. I also made a post to that effect elsewhere. But that is not the same argument you made in your previous post!

by plus 9y ago

drewbuschhorn 9y ago

> I don't intend to be confrontational Of course you do, or you wouldn't end the comment with "I suggest you read up on." Stenography is only useful when it's unknown or impractical to investigate possible payloads, either do to volume of possible hits or lack of knowledge how to decode the payload out of the source. If you tell an opponent: here is the decode technique and here is where the message is likely to be, you've basically defeated your own stenography.

plus 9y ago
It is true that my intention was not to be rude. My "I suggest you read up on" comment was in response to your claim: >You just can't effectively watermark data intended for human consumption, our tolerance for intentionally induced noise is too high. Which is simply not true! That kind of misunderstanding suggests that you are unfamiliar with the kinds of digital watermarking that are used TODAY, hence my suggestion that you read up on it. If the comment came off as rude, I certainly apologize, but I stand by the point I was trying to make. >If you tell an opponent: here is the decode technique and here is where the message is likely to be, you've basically defeated your own stenography. I agree with you on this point 100%. I also made a post to that effect elsewhere. But that is not the same argument you made in your previous post!