Re: Applied watermarks explained to moronic profs worldwide.

[Mordy Ovits <movits () bloomberg com>]

On Tuesday 13 January 2004 05:14 am, Dave Aitel wrote:
> Which is a bizarre way to solve the problem. A watermark is defined as
> something hard or impossible for the human eye to see, whereas the
> thing you are trying to protect is exactly that which the human eye
> can see. A edge detection fingerprint is easy, fast, and a better
> solution overall.

I don't want to be in the position of defending watermarking's validity, so 
let me just play devil's advocate for a moment, and then drop it.

<devil>
Watermarks are preferred to other image recognition techniques because they 
have the property of being difficult to remove.
</devil>

Of course we know that in practice they are no such thing, but that is what 
they are *sold as*.  They're about as successful as this vapid watermark 
respecting technique will be:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/08/0111228

Everyone knows that counterfeiters would never pirate an older copy of 
photoshop or crack the current one.  That would be copyright infringement, 
and counterfeiters are very meticulous about that sort of thing.

Mordy
-- 
Mordy Ovits
Network Security
Bloomberg L.P.

_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunitysec com
http://www.immunitysec.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave