2257 Idea? - GoFuckYourself.com

mrkris · 08-30-2006, 02:10 AM

Forgive the thread, but i'm a bit tired and after talking to toonpornblog about steganography, why not come up with a method of, hrm, encoding documentation into the images. Yeah, their would be certain issues, but the gov't could say ... hold a database of the known models and the image could just have the model ID encoded into the image to reference a DB. Many possibilities, affiliates would be protected because docs would be their available at any time.

Please, rant if you want, i don't care, i am tired and it happened to pop into my head. Discuss.

mikeyddddd · 08-30-2006, 02:15 AM

That makes too much sense to be implemented.

niceanice · 08-30-2006, 02:16 AM

thats an awesome idea

stickyfingerz · 08-30-2006, 02:18 AM

I like it in theory. If it could be implemented would be real good. Just so it couldnt be somehow abused by using the encrypted info from one pic being put onto another etc. If the process locked it in somehow it would work.

mrkris · 08-30-2006, 02:18 AM

I think it would work out well. If they encoded the ID or ID's into the image, the gov't could work from their desks and say, 'oh this image is watermarked as WeConvert but has no model ID encoded, time to raid them', instead of driving out saying, 'sup where are file cabinets'.

GrouchyAdmin · 08-30-2006, 02:22 AM

Of course, the nerdy implementation and stuff hasn't been discussed, but a UUID/GUID. consisting of vendor and 'arteest' could easily manage for the vast majority. I suppose you could use bits to signify shit, and just, of course, a salt held by the gubbermint.

Then again, I have been talking to mrkris for so long, my brains are oozing out my ears.

kmanrox · 08-30-2006, 02:36 AM

i like it... what would it take to get it going? sounds like it would take a lot to get some kind of official 'approval' though

GrouchyAdmin · 08-30-2006, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmanrox

i like it... what would it take to get it going? sounds like it would take a lot to get some kind of official 'approval' though

Well, here's where it gets a bit sticky. Not only do we need to embed it within the photo, better than my proof of concept which doesn't quite do what we're talking about, but it has to follow strict government guidelines.

The paperwork to embed the 2257 is probably only three or four pages.. for each picture. :/

GigoloMason · 08-30-2006, 02:41 AM

This was mentioned in the Q+A regarding the law. It was shot down. Keep in mind (the new) 2257 isn't intended to be practical it's intended to put us out of biz.

dcortez · 08-30-2006, 07:48 AM

2257 is NOT about protecting minors - it is a political tool.

As such, sensible ideas like yours are not relevant to those conjuring up these 'protection laws'.

JimmyStephans · 08-30-2006, 08:07 AM

Wouldn't we also have the issue of model privacy and protection?

Anybody with a copy of the image could decode the encrypted data and stalk the girl?

Teens broke the DVD encryption stuff in a few hours -- wouldn't somebody do it to this too?

mrkris · 08-30-2006, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyStephans

Wouldn't we also have the issue of model privacy and protection?

Anybody with a copy of the image could decode the encrypted data and stalk the girl?

Teens broke the DVD encryption stuff in a few hours -- wouldn't somebody do it to this too?

Not if the gov't had a DB of models and the images only stored a model ID

stickyfingerz · 08-30-2006, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrkris

Not if the gov't had a DB of models and the images only stored a model ID

That would be the thing there. You'd basically have to submit (hopefully electronically) to a government maintained database the info. Each picture or video would just contain a small id marker that points them to the file on the database for that particular model or models.

Grapesoda · 08-30-2006, 08:21 AM

hey NP . . come on by and encode about 8 terabytes of images for me . . thanks, I'll be waiting -bmb

crockett · 08-30-2006, 08:21 AM

It's a nice idea but it would be a very dangerous thing to do for privacy issues. You would have to assume that some 13 year old hacker would figure out how to break the encryption and then it would be all over the net.

mrkris · 08-30-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanton

hey NP . . come on by and encode about 8 terabytes of images for me . . thanks, I'll be waiting -bmb

Any slower than doing docs by hand? Also, to do 8 TB, yeah, might take a while .... but if you can't afford a decent computer and you have 8TB content for your members, then your shit is fucked, bottom line.

Grapesoda · 08-30-2006, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrkris

Any slower than doing docs by hand? Also, to do 8 TB, yeah, might take a while .... but if you can't afford a decent computer and you have 8TB content for your members, then your shit is fucked, bottom line.

I shoot for others, since 2000 . . I am the primary producer. my records are in perfect order . . . be best if you didn't deam up more work for me. -bmb

mrkris · 08-30-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanton

I shoot for others, since 2000 . . I am the primary producer. my records are in perfect order . . . be best if you didn't deam up more work for me. -bmb

I'm sure a tool could be made to batch a set of images, but hey, the gov't is gonna do what they're gonna do, and no offense, if it works better to do this for all the affiliates and program owners, then hey, i'm not against you having more work, after all, YOU are the one takin the pics, not us affiliates or program owners.

LiveDose · 08-30-2006, 09:36 AM

The government doesn't want a system that works. They want a system that fucks a majority of webmasters.

8K.... yippee!

free4porn · 08-30-2006, 09:40 AM

interesting idea

Tom_PM · 08-30-2006, 09:44 AM

JPEG has pretty much always had provisions for adding text annotations and whatever into the headers. While it probably wouldnt fulfill any requirements, it might make life a bit easier somehow I guess.

08-30-2006, 02:10 AM	#1
mrkris Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 2,737	2257 Idea? Forgive the thread, but i'm a bit tired and after talking to toonpornblog about steganography, why not come up with a method of, hrm, encoding documentation into the images. Yeah, their would be certain issues, but the gov't could say ... hold a database of the known models and the image could just have the model ID encoded into the image to reference a DB. Many possibilities, affiliates would be protected because docs would be their available at any time. Please, rant if you want, i don't care, i am tired and it happened to pop into my head. Discuss. __________________ PHP-MySQL-Rails \| ICQ: 342500546

08-30-2006, 02:15 AM	#2
mikeyddddd Viva la vulva! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself Posts: 16,557	That makes too much sense to be implemented. __________________ AdultStarProfits AmbyaCash AnilosCash AzianiGold ColdHardCash FlashTheMoney IdolBucks MediumPimpin NSCash Nubiles PussyCash ScoreCash Sextronix SpunkyCash TubeTitans Twistys

08-30-2006, 02:18 AM	#5
mrkris Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 2,737	I think it would work out well. If they encoded the ID or ID's into the image, the gov't could work from their desks and say, 'oh this image is watermarked as WeConvert but has no model ID encoded, time to raid them', instead of driving out saying, 'sup where are file cabinets'. __________________ PHP-MySQL-Rails \| ICQ: 342500546

08-30-2006, 02:22 AM	#6
GrouchyAdmin Now choke yourself! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 12,085	Of course, the nerdy implementation and stuff hasn't been discussed, but a UUID/GUID. consisting of vendor and 'arteest' could easily manage for the vast majority. I suppose you could use bits to signify shit, and just, of course, a salt held by the gubbermint. Then again, I have been talking to mrkris for so long, my brains are oozing out my ears. __________________ AIM: GrouchyGfy

08-30-2006, 02:41 AM	#9
GigoloMason Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 742	This was mentioned in the Q+A regarding the law. It was shot down. Keep in mind (the new) 2257 isn't intended to be practical it's intended to put us out of biz. __________________

08-30-2006, 02:16 AM	#3
niceanice Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 145	thats an awesome idea

08-30-2006, 02:18 AM	#4
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,984	I like it in theory. If it could be implemented would be real good. Just so it couldnt be somehow abused by using the encrypted info from one pic being put onto another etc. If the process locked it in somehow it would work.

08-30-2006, 02:36 AM	#7
kmanrox aka K-Man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Gutter Posts: 29,292	i like it... what would it take to get it going? sounds like it would take a lot to get some kind of official 'approval' though

08-30-2006, 07:48 AM	#10
dcortez DINO CORTEZ™ Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Vancouver Island Posts: 2,145	2257 is NOT about protecting minors - it is a political tool. As such, sensible ideas like yours are not relevant to those conjuring up these 'protection laws'.

08-30-2006, 08:07 AM	#11
JimmyStephans Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Littleton, Colorado. USA Posts: 560	Wouldn't we also have the issue of model privacy and protection? Anybody with a copy of the image could decode the encrypted data and stalk the girl? Teens broke the DVD encryption stuff in a few hours -- wouldn't somebody do it to this too? __________________ http://TrueBabes.com/

08-30-2006, 08:21 AM	#14
Grapesoda So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montana Posts: 46,238	hey NP . . come on by and encode about 8 terabytes of images for me . . thanks, I'll be waiting -bmb

08-30-2006, 08:21 AM	#15
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	It's a nice idea but it would be a very dangerous thing to do for privacy issues. You would have to assume that some 13 year old hacker would figure out how to break the encryption and then it would be all over the net. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

08-30-2006, 09:36 AM	#19
LiveDose Show Yer Tits! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Out there... Posts: 25,792	The government doesn't want a system that works. They want a system that fucks a majority of webmasters. 8K.... yippee! __________________ Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal

08-30-2006, 09:40 AM	#20
free4porn Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,654	interesting idea __________________ Switch To Fling Now! I'm on 1:201 paid signups sending little traffic! Make $$$ Free Porn

08-30-2006, 09:44 AM	#21
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	JPEG has pretty much always had provisions for adding text annotations and whatever into the headers. While it probably wouldnt fulfill any requirements, it might make life a bit easier somehow I guess. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.