h a l f b a k e r yBunned. James Bunned.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Law in many areas requires a person to show due diligence
in
verification persons depicted in porn are of age. With
photo
sharing being integrated into so many sites, people are
accessing photos that they can't really trust. People that
view images on photo sharing sites
could be putting
themselves at undue risk.
Forensics professionals have software that can find known
Illicit porn by metadata. They also have software that can
find images by pigment and face shapes.
It seems a logical next step to take forensics technology
and
integrate it into a browser extension. Such an extension
could
scan images on photo sharing sites using forensics tools
prior
to loading, and would allow you to browse online without
running into anything illegal. Illicit images would
automatically be
blocked,
and administrators contacted.
EDIT: I have not looked at any of the comments because I'm
sensitive about the idea. Playing with encase today, I
realized that it might be too resource intensive for a home
computer to scan every photo prior to loading, however, it
might be more manageable if it would only occur on sites
like flicker or free porn sites etc.And perhaps as an
alternative It might be an option to put the burden on ion
the image hosting site to scan every photo as it is uploaded.
[link]
|
| |
Refraining (with some difficulty) from saying spoilsport...I do wonder how this would work in reality.....for example presuming you might be talking of underage product, how is a program to guess someone's age? |
|
| |
Being English, I have to say "a friend" had some of hers tossed due to concerns about age. |
|
| |
Anything that makes governments look stupid and ineffectual is good,
so [-]. |
|
| |
Then, Shirley, you meant to bun this idea. I can't
think of anything that makes governments look more
stupid and ineffectual than attempting to block porn. |
|
| |
Also, this is hardly an original idea. Or a good one,
but it's definitely not original. |
|
| |
Personally I am vexed by EXIF data, as I have to scrub it all before putting any kind of pic on the net.. |
|
| |
Cum on guys! Don't be too hard on this idea! |
|
| |
Essentially, the core of the idea is :
1) find out what algorithms the powers that monitor use.
2) use those algorithms in a browser extention to exclude
you from stepping on a land mine. |
|
| |
Then, users can access nearly infinite similar material that
bypasses those filters, more safely evading the big prude
brother. |
|
| |
//algorithms the powers that monitor use. |
|
| |
Errrr, what does that actually mean? Eg my monitor is 240 v ac...or the powers ie those who monitor, or what turns up on the monitor (mine or theirs)? |
|
| |
[not_morrison_rm] Wow, I really used vague
language there. |
|
| |
Let's say the UK gov't is using a filtering function to
catch free-speech advocates. (Like, going after
Greenwald & his boyfriend.) That's not a blocker,
just a catching algorithm. If we could figure out
enough of that, we could put the same filter into a
browser extension, to self-block our web traffic from
getting caught. |
|
| |
It's like, we could put this in our /etc/hosts file to
help us be more productive, & not get on our
employer's radar:
127.0.0.1 halfbakery.com |
|
| |
This is a good iddea in itself but it touches on a bigger problem. Should the internet and acces to it be regulated at all? Sure it seeems wise to block content of a specific sort but next thing you know you can't even diss obamacare anymore if you wanted to. |
|
| |
Or do you want to give certain websites a first amendment zone tag. |
|
| |