3 ms·

Idea for women to watermark nude photos shared on Telegram wins hackathon award

10 points by doppp 5y ago

new_guy 5y ago
Even better, just don't send nudes to someone if you don't trust they're not gonna forward it.
wruza 5y ago
If someone wants to forward that, it boils down to just downloading it. Which cannot be protected, only obscured away. One can always download img src from a web app or take a screenshot of the image, or just take a photo of a real phone screen. But that’s not even the core issue. DRMing face-included nudes taken by yourself is like trying to sit on two distant chairs with one butt.
- upofadown 5y ago
  Stenographic image watermarks would make sense here. Different methods could be used to increase the uncertainty. The point here is to be a deterrent. It would not have to be reliable.
  - upofadown 5y ago
    I probably really meant "What Is Steganographic" here...
    - bradknowles 5y ago
      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
  - wruza 5y ago
    Frankly I don’t even get the idea why it’s important who exactly forwarded these pics. How is it a deterrent? We know it is Alex, alright. What now? He didn’t sign no kind of NDA in the chat. Men could also have this issue, if they made explicit pics which could end up in hands of relatives or something like that. Why is it only girls’ one? The entire watermark thing assumes that it’s not just a private photo, it is one that they send to many people from their nudes arsenal, consciously making them, not accidentally under a feeling of the moment. You know, you’re either the one who made a mistake, or the one who sends nudes regularly and are okay with someone finding that out. Picture yourself in a “good” light and there will be no reason to make it “publicly-private”.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Frankly I don’t even get the idea why it’s important who exactly forwarded these pics. How is it a deterrent? We know it is Alex, alright. What now? He didn’t sign no kind of NDA in the chat. Copyright doesn't work on a principle of “all rights are granted unless you sign an explicit agreement not to distribute”. Neither for the most part do the laws, in jurisdictions that have them, specifically addressing nonconsensual distribution of private images, nor the more general tort laws on invasion of privacy, etc., that have been applied to similar acts without more specific laws addressing them.
  - bradknowles 5y ago
    Did you mean steganographic? Because stenography is a rather different subject — see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stenography https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stenography That said, steganographic techniques are not robust in the face of alteration — they’re meant to be kept hidden and undetectable, so they are very fragile if the image is modified in even the slightest way. There are more robust watermarking methods, but they are definitely not hidden or difficult to detect.

10 points by doppp 5y ago

Even better, just don't send nudes to someone if you don't trust they're not gonna forward it.

If someone wants to forward that, it boils down to just downloading it. Which cannot be protected, only obscured away. One can always download img src from a web app or take a screenshot of the image, or just take a photo of a real phone screen. But that’s not even the core issue. DRMing face-included nudes taken by yourself is like trying to sit on two distant chairs with one butt.

upofadown 5y ago
Stenographic image watermarks would make sense here. Different methods could be used to increase the uncertainty. The point here is to be a deterrent. It would not have to be reliable.
- upofadown 5y ago
  I probably really meant "What Is Steganographic" here...
  - bradknowles 5y ago
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
- wruza 5y ago
  Frankly I don’t even get the idea why it’s important who exactly forwarded these pics. How is it a deterrent? We know it is Alex, alright. What now? He didn’t sign no kind of NDA in the chat. Men could also have this issue, if they made explicit pics which could end up in hands of relatives or something like that. Why is it only girls’ one? The entire watermark thing assumes that it’s not just a private photo, it is one that they send to many people from their nudes arsenal, consciously making them, not accidentally under a feeling of the moment. You know, you’re either the one who made a mistake, or the one who sends nudes regularly and are okay with someone finding that out. Picture yourself in a “good” light and there will be no reason to make it “publicly-private”.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Frankly I don’t even get the idea why it’s important who exactly forwarded these pics. How is it a deterrent? We know it is Alex, alright. What now? He didn’t sign no kind of NDA in the chat. Copyright doesn't work on a principle of “all rights are granted unless you sign an explicit agreement not to distribute”. Neither for the most part do the laws, in jurisdictions that have them, specifically addressing nonconsensual distribution of private images, nor the more general tort laws on invasion of privacy, etc., that have been applied to similar acts without more specific laws addressing them.
- bradknowles 5y ago
  Did you mean steganographic? Because stenography is a rather different subject — see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stenography https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stenography That said, steganographic techniques are not robust in the face of alteration — they’re meant to be kept hidden and undetectable, so they are very fragile if the image is modified in even the slightest way. There are more robust watermarking methods, but they are definitely not hidden or difficult to detect.