The other part is that all the politicians keep whining about the
dominance of Facebook and Google.
Then they pass a law which effectively cements their dominance in place.
Facebook and Google are at a size where they can actually put some
serious money and effort in to these kinds of video analysis.
Sure it still sucks, but they can at least attempt to do it.
If I had a novel idea involving live streaming, I make a start up and it
becomes popular.
But a small start up in Australia has no hope of approaching the types
of analysis that Facebook and Google can do.
The politicians just use the same arguments they use with cryptography.
"We pass the laws, you guys are smart and have algorithms. We are sure
you can figure out how to comply."
What the government should be doing is producing the video analysis
algorithms themselves.
Then the law can state that online companies must use their model to be
compliant with the law.
The responsibility then falls on to the government, startups are on
equal footing as the dominant companies and complying is relatively easy.
But that solution is hard (arguably unsolvable at the moment) and when
the model inevitably fails the government wouldn't be able to make a
bogeyman out of the big tech companies.
On 9/4/19 9:33 pm, a...@coastalaudio.com.au wrote:
Let's see this wonderful "fingerprint" Paul...
Video fingerprinting is used for copyright purposes and is of no use in
detecting "suspect" videos.
The AI algorithm required to do this would require a lot of processing
power.
Just how is a provider supposed to finance the development of said
algorithm...?
And then apply it in real time across an entire network?
The computational power required would be enormous, thus YouTube's abject
failure in this area.
Open NSFW is an open source neural network that struggles with static
images...
How is a provider supposed to monitor video in real time?
An interesting Open NSFW talk here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Bmt7tksvM
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: AusNOG <ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net> On Behalf Of Peter Fern
Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2019 2:30 PM
To: ausnog@lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions
On 9/4/19 2:22 pm, Paul Wilkins wrote:
2 - Ensure you have in place a mechanism to match electronic
fingerprints of material similar to anything identified in a eSafety
Commissioner's notice.
By the by, without a mechanism for the eSafety Commissioner to match
content (a common mechanism for electronic fingerprinting material
across hosting providers), the eSafety Commissioner will find
themselves playing whack a mole chasing content specific to each
hosting provider.
What do you think that looks like, exactly? You've brought up this magical
fingerprint technology multiple times, and been rebuffed multiple times,
with no response. I think it's irresponsible to suggest that this is an easy
solve.
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
--
Nick Stallman
Technical Director
Email n...@agentpoint.com <mailto:n...@agentpoint.com>
Phone 02 8039 6820 <tel:0280396820>
Website www.agentpoint.com.au <https://www.agentpoint.com.au/>
Agentpoint <https://www.agentpoint.com.au/>
Netpoint <https://netpoint.group/>
Level 3, 100 Harris Street, Pyrmont NSW 2009 Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/agentpoint/> Twitter
<https://twitter.com/agentpoint> Instagram
<https://www.instagram.com/Agentpoint/> Linkedin
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/agentpoint-pty-ltd>
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
