Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

dheera.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#81

Post by mscarborough »

izzydata wrote: post #64
frogpelt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just a pedophile" A phrase I never thought I'd see.

Someone who is homosexual isn't any more inclined to molest or rape someone of their own sex than a pedophile is to molest or rape a child. More on topic about censoring important information. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I feel like I've seen images where the thumbnail was retained from a previous version. Even at 32x32 there might be some way to expand it and gather some kind of information from its pixela…

What is the relation between homosexuals and pedophiles?

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#82

Post by georgemcbay »

I think a lot of people are unaware of how easily you can achieve blind deconvolution on many images blurred with most blur algorithms and even real-world blurring effects (including motion, out-of-focus, etc blurs).

The results won't be perfect, but they are usually close enough to see much of the detail that appeared to be lost.

I never use blur to obscure sensitive information; black that shit out (and then also make sure you aren't saving it as metadata or in a layer) or just replace it with fake data.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#84

Post by seanflyon »

jebus989 wrote: post #58
exelius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, basically. 4chan's admins have been working with the police for many years because of the questionable shit that gets posted on /b/ (child porn, murder threats/evidence, suicidal posts, etc.) They would have been shut down years ago if they weren't cooperating.

The way I've heard this story in the past was specifically that anon did the unswirl and then tipped off the police. But seeing as that isn't mentioned on wiki (and not uber keen to google about), I guess it's probably not the case.

In the modern world we have a new class of difficult to obtain information. I know how to find the answer to my question, but not without exposing myself to information that I do not want.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#85

Post by seanflyon »

bithush wrote: post #23
erikb wrote: post #6

In some cases even blurring faces might be a bad idea. Just because we are unable to unblur a face today doesn't mean we are unable in 10 years or 100 years. In many cases this might not be a problem but in some cases this might lead to trouble later on which can be avoided just as easily.

Indeed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paul_Neil

Swirl is not a lossy process. If he had blurred his face he would have been much harder to catch.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#86

Post by DavidBradbury »

izzydata wrote: post #64
frogpelt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just a pedophile" A phrase I never thought I'd see.

Someone who is homosexual isn't any more inclined to molest or rape someone of their own sex than a pedophile is to molest or rape a child. More on topic about censoring important information. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I feel like I've seen images where the thumbnail was retained from a previous version. Even at 32x32 there might be some way to expand it and gather some kind of information from its pixela…

Please do not treat pedophilia like it is a sexual orientation. Also, please do not try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia — you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the underlying implication is quite offensive.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#87

Post by makomk »

jebus989 wrote: post #58
exelius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, basically. 4chan's admins have been working with the police for many years because of the questionable shit that gets posted on /b/ (child porn, murder threats/evidence, suicidal posts, etc.) They would have been shut down years ago if they weren't cooperating.

The way I've heard this story in the past was specifically that anon did the unswirl and then tipped off the police. But seeing as that isn't mentioned on wiki (and not uber keen to google about), I guess it's probably not the case.

Someone linked the relevant case elsewhere in the discussion, and apparently it was a computer expert working for the German police that did the unswirling (which is about what I remember from the news at the time): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paul_Neil

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#88

Post by topdownjimmy »

bithush wrote: post #22

I feel this is also very relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paul_Neil Police took a photo with a "swirl" effect of a paedophiles face and reversed it to reveal a very usable picture. So good in fact he was found and arrested.

Also relevant?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3xd8bXlzeU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYubZoycACw

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#89

Post by izzydata »

mscarborough wrote: post #81
izzydata wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who is homosexual isn't any more inclined to molest or rape someone of their own sex than a pedophile is to molest or rape a child. More on topic about censoring important information. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I feel like I've seen images where the thumbnail was retained from a previous version. Even at 32x32 there might be some way to expand it and gather some kind of information from its pixela…

What is the relation between homosexuals and pedophiles?

They are both people with no relation to whether or not they will molest someone else they are attracted to. You could also just throw heterosexuals in there to be safe. I suppose if you wanted to avoid comparing a sexual orientation to something that isn't you could maybe use something like being attracted to people who wear glasses. People who find other people who wear glasses attractive has no relation to whether or not they will molest them.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#90

Post by xenadu02 »

izzydata wrote: post #64
frogpelt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just a pedophile" A phrase I never thought I'd see.

Someone who is homosexual isn't any more inclined to molest or rape someone of their own sex than a pedophile is to molest or rape a child. More on topic about censoring important information. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I feel like I've seen images where the thumbnail was retained from a previous version. Even at 32x32 there might be some way to expand it and gather some kind of information from its pixela…

It never fails: You can always find some pedantic creepy internet weirdo to start tut-tutting "now, now, let's think of the poor pedophiles..."
Post reply on HN