4 ms·

How is a hidden watermark that only police and providers can read better than a hidden watermark that the people can also read if they go out of their way to se

by vasco 5mo ago

How is a hidden watermark that only police and providers can read better than a hidden watermark that the people can also read if they go out of their way to setup some project like this? Also your argument makes zero sense because bad guys will do this anyway. At least there's also an open source project for normal people, and it's interesting from a stenography standpoint.

digitaltrees 5mo ago
Watermarks exists to create a chain of custody or attribution that can be used to establish culpability. Just like the government requires printer companies to add a dot matrix watermark to printed pages to prevent currency forgery. Making untraceable assets means parties can’t be held liable for harms. Just because a bad actor might poison a toddler doesn’t mean you should sell them the arsenic. Just because the effects of arsenic on the neurons of a brain are interesting means you should feed them to a toddler and watch the effects unfold. I support the legal freedom to pursue any idea, but we should also mentor our colleagues about the consequences of our projects and avoid unnecessary harm.
- vasco 5mo ago
  What is it with people that take your position that they always need to bring children to the discussion? Where's the watermark in an IKEA knife?
  - digitaltrees 5mo ago
    Is an ikea knife infinitely replicable, distributable and capable of undermining the entire social fabric of a community? No. so these are not the same category of threat potential. Further, an ikea knife used in a crime can be traced back to the criminal through other evidence like finger prints, surveillance cameras, purchase receipts etc. Arguments that have a emotional component, especially related to our evolutionary instinct to take care of kids has a way of avoiding the rationalizations people adopt to justify otherwise indefensible behavior. You also dont do yourself any favors in a bad argument that lumps me in with some unknown group of people rather tan responding to my argument.
- xeyownt 5mo ago
  No. All watermarks are cures that are worse than the diseases they are trying to prevent (and never achieved to even cure anything). Watermark is a blatant violation of legitimate privacy expectations, while not preventing anything because they can be easily removed. So all the honest usages are punished, while illegitimate ones are not caught.
  - digitaltrees 5mo ago
    A water mark that identifies you personally is a different prospect than one that merely identifies the image as AI generated. I am with you on opposing a watermark that identifies a person. I am not with you in saying all watermarks are a violation of privacy or that they result in punishment of honest use. I don’t see how those follow.

by vasco 5mo ago

digitaltrees 5mo ago

Watermarks exists to create a chain of custody or attribution that can be used to establish culpability. Just like the government requires printer companies to add a dot matrix watermark to printed pages to prevent currency forgery. Making untraceable assets means parties can’t be held liable for harms. Just because a bad actor might poison a toddler doesn’t mean you should sell them the arsenic. Just because the effects of arsenic on the neurons of a brain are interesting means you should feed them to a toddler and watch the effects unfold. I support the legal freedom to pursue any idea, but we should also mentor our colleagues about the consequences of our projects and avoid unnecessary harm.

vasco 5mo ago
What is it with people that take your position that they always need to bring children to the discussion? Where's the watermark in an IKEA knife?
- digitaltrees 5mo ago
  Is an ikea knife infinitely replicable, distributable and capable of undermining the entire social fabric of a community? No. so these are not the same category of threat potential. Further, an ikea knife used in a crime can be traced back to the criminal through other evidence like finger prints, surveillance cameras, purchase receipts etc. Arguments that have a emotional component, especially related to our evolutionary instinct to take care of kids has a way of avoiding the rationalizations people adopt to justify otherwise indefensible behavior. You also dont do yourself any favors in a bad argument that lumps me in with some unknown group of people rather tan responding to my argument.
xeyownt 5mo ago
No. All watermarks are cures that are worse than the diseases they are trying to prevent (and never achieved to even cure anything). Watermark is a blatant violation of legitimate privacy expectations, while not preventing anything because they can be easily removed. So all the honest usages are punished, while illegitimate ones are not caught.
- digitaltrees 5mo ago
  A water mark that identifies you personally is a different prospect than one that merely identifies the image as AI generated. I am with you on opposing a watermark that identifies a person. I am not with you in saying all watermarks are a violation of privacy or that they result in punishment of honest use. I don’t see how those follow.