I'll just leave this here:
Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)
101–110 of 131 posts
Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)
#102Earlier 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…
Your pedophile / homosexual comparison seems to imply there's such a thing as consensual sex with a child?? A pedophile is much more likely to molest a child, because that's the only way their desires can be realized in the physical world. A homosexual could, I dunno, go have consensual gay sex? That's why people find this comparison offensive.
I think the distinction is between what a pedophile finds themselves drawn to and what they do. And, I might add, there are many ways for people to find gratification without actually having sex, or in fact ethically needing the consent of anyone. Also, pedophiles are absolutely comparable to homosexuals—both are individuals classified for their sexuality, regardless of how they express it or wish to be classified.
(To clarify, I absolutely to not condone any interactions whatsoever to do with pedophilia... but come on, people, let's not be blind here to the existence of people with full self control, ethical behavior, and private thoughts and desires.)
Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)
#103Earlier 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…
Your pedophile / homosexual comparison seems to imply there's such a thing as consensual sex with a child?? A pedophile is much more likely to molest a child, because that's the only way their desires can be realized in the physical world. A homosexual could, I dunno, go have consensual gay sex? That's why people find this comparison offensive.
> Your pedophile / homosexual comparison seems to imply there's such a thing as consensual sex with a child??
Western law currently says no. But allowed sexual behavior (especially in this area) has historically been all over the map. One or two generations ago we were castrating homosexuals for their unnatural bevahior. Pederasty was an important part of Greek culture. Research the age of consent around the world and prepare for surprises.
I'll agree that a pedophile is much more likely to molest child, though. We define it that way.
Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)
#104I entered an underhanded contest one year where the challenge was recoverable-but-correct-looking redaction of jpegs. I used an insecure random seed based on the time (you could brute force an unredacted image based on the rough time it was generated). The winning solutions were more clever
You (and I) were among the many which implemented that exact technique for http://underhanded.xcott.com/?page_id=17 . :)
Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)
#105http://blog.mailgun.com/open-sourcing-our-email-signature-pa... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081532) has some screenshots with blurred email addresses you can read without fancy deciphering.
Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm with you 100% on the whole issue, and believe that pedophilia isn't any less ethical than homosexuality is, but I do feel that a sexually repressed person who cannot release their sexual urges is more likely to rape someone than a person who regularly has sex/relationships/etc, regardless of sexual preference.
Maybe not very much more likely, but it's definitely not less, and probably not equal.
Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder or paraphilia; not a sexual orientation. This is thoroughly discussed and documented. The APA has changed any such notation in the DSM. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-...
This is just splitting hairs over definitions. The APA are not the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not a sexual orientation, and if anything, the fact DSM-5 referred to it as a sexual orientation lends credence to the view that it is as such. Sexual orientations and psychiatric disorders are not mutually exclusive. Bear in mind for much of history society treated homosexuality akin to a psychiatric disorder (Edit…
I'm going to reply here singly, rather than to each of the three that replied to my post above.
Please be clear that the article described the description of pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the DSM was an error - not a mind-changing. There was no "credence" lent to it being viewed as such; it was mistake and was admitted as such, and corrected. It was intended to read "sexual interest", not sexual orientation.
“In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a ‘paraphilia,’ not a ‘sexual orientation.’ This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual,” the organization said. The error appeared on page 698, said a spokeswoman.
The fluidity of the APA DSM is not something that is worth arguing; we can all agree that definitions change and have changed. I'm operating under the current set of definitions and primarily wanted to make the point that likening paraphilic disorders as "sexual orientations" is typically hurtful for reasons that probably don't require explaining.
Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)
#108Has this attack actually been proved possible? He writes that he thinks it should work but doesn't have the time or inclination to prove it. If anyone wants to take a stab at it, I'll gladly submit a mosaiced photo of my credit card because I don't think the attack is practical. If you crack it, you're free to keep whatever you can get. :)
You have to know the original font the numbers were in, and the original algorithm or program used to do the blurring. Then it's just a matter of brute forcing it. Using a 'smear' brush would be a more secure way to blur, there are various sizes and you introduce some randomness in the path of your mouse/stylus when blurring, and you can go over the numbers multiple times. Blurring to much higher factors is a better…
You have to be careful doing this. If your blur tool happens to be of the variety that conserves total brightness (i.e. the blurring is accomplished by 2D convolution with a kernel that has a volume of 1, so sum of all pixel values remains constant before and after blurring), it can still be dictionary attacked pretty easily no matter which random ways you blur, since each digit in the cheque font probably has a different amount of total black area, and your blurring preserves that information perfectly.
If you blur tool is of the variety that doesn't conserve total brightness, such as most "smudge" tools, and you use human randomness to blur it, then it would probably be pretty hard to reverse.
I still recommend cutting out the sensitive information rather than blurring it, just to be safe. Also, leave a generous margin, (1) to avoid giving information about length, and (2) because lossy compressors may have left tiny artifacts of the sensitive information in the areas around it.
Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pedophilia in itself isn't a crime. Well, unless we've started prosecuting thought-crime. I could have missed that update.
Prosecution of downloading pedo material is as close as it gets to thought-crime.
Similar to how downloading some else's bank account into yours is practically thought-crime?
"But officer, I was only shuffling bits!" isn't a defense.
Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prosecution of downloading pedo material is as close as it gets to thought-crime.
Similar to how downloading some else's bank account into yours is practically thought-crime? "But officer, I was only shuffling bits!" isn't a defense.
I don't see how robbing someones bank account is comparable to downloading outlawed pornography.