3 ms·
Even if Megaupload took down files based on hash, there are ways for pirates to work around it. The MKV and AVI video container formats, for example, have loads
by pjscott 15y ago
Even if Megaupload took down files based on hash, there are ways for pirates to work around it. The MKV and AVI video container formats, for example, have loads of places where you could stick a nonce so that the exact same video would produce arbitrarily many hash values.
- gst 15y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locality-sensitive_hashing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locality-sensitive_hashing
- nitrogen 15y agoSo Locality-sensitive hashing has basically the opposite goal of a cryptographic hash function, where a single bit change in the input should result in a significant change in the output? What if there's a legitimate, private file uploaded to Megaupload's hypothetical successor, but someone uploads a highly-similar file publicly that gets a takedown notice? The problem with forcing digital locker sites to remove content by hash rather than by URL is that it's impossible for them to know whether some of the URLs that point to a given hash are legitimate (e.g. a FLAC file being transferred by a musician to their CD pressing company and a select set of friends, but someone leaks the FLAC files and they get re-uploaded and deduped). This problem would be exacerbated by using a fuzzy or locality-sensitive hash rather than a cryptographic hash.
- wladimir 15y agoOr they could simply wrap it in a zip/rar file, with a public (but different) password. Or code it as a video format that the hosting site doesn't know. Old tricks that are basically impossible to block. There are so many ways to recode information that make it difficult to auto-match.