• ashinadash [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    small differences/invisible watermarks that uniquely identify

    This has never worked so far lol. Their “invisible watermark” always ruins the media even beyond treathog consumption levels.

    Otherwise is there anything the individual user should be doing, short of not buying smart TVs (me) and not buying TPM chipped computers?

    • The_sleepy_woke_dialectic [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I guess put money you would have spent on streaming sites on hard drives and data horde before they stop you.

      Support libre software and projects like Firefox and invidious

      IPFS is an internet protocol that lets you the user help host things that you consume in a communal way, using some hard drive space you don’t need right now, but I wouldn’t recommend it yet because It has glaring problems. It’s a better future vision for the internet but there are a lot of crypto bros involved trying to inject capitalism where IMO it isn’t necessary.

      You can’t really get away from TPM computers for long I don’t think.

      In short; I don’t even know

      • ashinadash [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I data horde, and I don’t pay for even one stream screm-cool I should donate to foss projects more but I am broke, alas.

        IPFS sounds theoretically cool… As for TPM the newest PC in my house is a Zen Plus B450 machine that doesn’t even meet the Windows 11 TPM requirments, and the last W11 install in my house is about to get swapped for a W10 LTCS install, for g*ming. When that dies I will just run Linux/W7 honestly.

    • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      You’re interpreting the term watermark too literally

      It will be a small unique arrangement of just a few pixels to identify the user

      It can even be distributed across the screen pixel by pixel to make it less noticeable

      All they’d have to do is make each pixel 1 hex code lighter or darker or something

      Assuming each pixel can have no change, 1 step lighter, or 1 step darker, it’d only take 22 pixels to cover 31B accounts = 3^22

      I believe there’s 25B Google accounts in total out there atm

          • ashinadash [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            It’s plausible but unlikely I think, putting a lot of faith into shitty pinhole cameras to be able to see twenty two 4K pixels one hex value lighter or darker, when most cameras have atrocious definition/sharpness and get blown out by light, blinded by darkness. I dunno, this reminds me of the screaming around Microsoft Kinect in 2013. They had bad and shitty plans for Kinect but, cheap hardware everyone hated Idk.

        • The_sleepy_woke_dialectic [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          There exists a technology that takes elements in a picture, like a bird in the background, a character, a glass of water, etc and moves them just a few pixels. You can encode a lot of data like that and it’s undetectable given just one example. They can encode your unique user identifier 1000 times in even a short video. A camera is bound to pick up at least part of it each time.

          • ashinadash [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Quotin’

            putting a lot of faith into shitty pinhole cameras to be able to see twenty two 4K pixels one hex value lighter or darker, when most cameras have atrocious definition/sharpness and get blown out by light, blinded by darkness.

            I guess if the TV itself was doing the DRM recognition? Idk though, I’ve seen alarmist posting like this before… seems to me evil tech shit usually gets done in more mundane ways?

            • The_sleepy_woke_dialectic [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Its definitely possible and even trivial to do there are a thousand ways to encode just a few bytes of data undetectably in a video and nothing but motivation stopping them from using every one every where. I think it’s plenty mundane and even trivial for what they get.