• ashinadash [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year 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?

        • ashinadash [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year 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
        1 year 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
              1 year 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.

            • ashinadash [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year 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?

    • CarbonScored [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I still think this is a quite an unrealistically pessimistic outlook, so long as there are a decent handful of privacy-interested technerds, it’ll be effectively impossible. The DVD encryption code was initially hailed as the end of piracy, but it was broken about 7 days into being released.

      • TPMs are already very easy to crack.
      • DRM protection today can be overcome simply with OBS, and all the protection in the world won’t work against a DisplayPort cable and a recording card.
      • Identifying every stream to a physical person is not reliable, watermarks get reverse-engineered, accounts use fake details, shows get sold, video databases get hacked, pirates use hacked accounts etc.
      • Most ISPs haven’t used IPv6 because it’s impractical, not because they love cgNAT, plus having your own public address is still very common. Even if you couldn’t get your own public address, port tunnelling is easy and would immediately become the norm. Plus if anything, only having a public IPv6 address would make your server even less accessible than cgNAT.

      The adage remains true, to keep a thing secret and secure, you have to be perfect at security 100% of the time. To hack a thing, copy it a million times, and make it effectively public, it takes one lucky break. Perfect security is logically impossible, people will find a way.