Hacker News Reader

Comment by FTA | Hacker News Reader

This reminds me a bit of the common argument for locks: it keeps regular people honest. Watermarks are designed really to deter you from casually copying an image and pasting it on your site, unless you don't care at all about a watermark showing (e.g. a blog site with a few followers).

I'm sure a mixture of the original computer vision technique plus some smearing on the original image could wash away even these randomly perturbed watermarks.

Just with many other security matters, you will always be trying to stay one step ahead of someone attempting to circumvent protections. So really the best protection against someone removing watermarks is to file a copyright infringement against the infringing party. DMCA (fixed acronym order :]) is a powerful tool in the USA.

In either case, this was a neat article.

View on HN

This is exactly right, and is also what keeps the casual thief from doing things like copying software. Obviously these can be cracked, but the layman isn't going to deal with, or even know about it. I don't want to get into the "well those people wouldn't have paid for it anyhow" argument. I firmly believe, as much as a hassle as it is, it's preventing proliferation to the masses. Not much to complain about really, we did it to ourselves.

Same can be applied to locks on a house. Prevents someone looking to have fun, from just walking into your home. Otherwise it's too much effort.

Regarding reporting. I've submitted various copyright claims to Instagram for others using my photography, and they responded quickly. It was a smooth transaction.

I think there's this assumption in some quarters that because there is a tradition of very intelligent people, such as MIT alums, knowing how to pick locks that it's essentially a universal skill. I think it also grossly underestimaes the low intelligence, drive, and education of most people who are breaking into a home of an evening.

These are people who are most of the time looking for the open window, the unlocked door, or some other sign of carelessness which they can exploit. Like most predators they're not looking to take down the strongest or the fittest, they're not even looking to take down the average; they're looking for the weak, the sick, the elderly... and they are the biggest victim groups along with criminals themselves.

If you didn't have locks, then most people could break into your house without leaving any indication that the home had been broken into except that they had stolen some of your stuff. A lock means that most people have to either crudely force the lock, break a window, break down the door, etc.

The ease (or lack thereof) of picking locks isn't the issue. Forced entry isn't very hard for many (possibly most) homes. As a person with a home, I guess it's nice that forced entry makes it obvious that an unauthorized person has been in my house, but missing belongings would be pretty obvious too.

Missing belongings are obvious to the homeowner, and if that homeowner has insurance including those items named specifically, and your insurance company believes your story. As it stands now broken locks, broken windows, broken doors also serve as evidence that a crime was committed. At that point your insurance takes over if you have insurance, otherwise that's pretty much it most of the time. I don't think you'd like to see what would happen if you try to sell to police and insurance the notion of bandits was only sign of being in your home was the absence of some of your belongings.

It's pretty hard to fully protect in the first place because someone desperate enough can always inpaint (aka content-aware fill) over the watermark. Project Naptha has a pretty nice web demo showing how well that works for erasing text from images: https://projectnaptha.com/

Off-topic: Can you fill out your profile? I am not active on HN but I sometimes go by the initials fta elsewhere

Whenever they tell me my smart lock can be hacked I respond... "yeah, and someone can also just take a brick, smash my window, and go through that way."

You'll notice the broken window. Your insurance will see the evidence and pay up. Much harder to prove somebody messed with a smart lock.

Security works best in layers.

My origional comment might be a bit simplistic because In my case in order to not be caught they would have to hack not just my lock but also have to hack my security system network (separate from my home Wifi) and disable the alarms and camera.

But you're right not everyone has layers.

Although one could argue a traditional non-smart lock is not hard to "hack" and leave no evidence either.

Think about this: What if unsafe web-based locks become more prevalent? What if someone builds a "brick smashing service"? Install the app and run it while driving through $neighborhood until a device is detected. The app comes with filters and only shows locks that haven't been unlocked in the last three days. It shows you the probability of 'someone is home'. You press the 'unlock' button, pay $some_amount in bitcoins and the service unlocks it for you.

Can you see our point now?

But a malicious person in Guatemala would have to first fly to wherever you live, then throw a brick individually through each window they wanted to break. With smart locks, that same individual can throw tens of thousands of bricks through tens of thousands of windows without even leaving their desk.

But what good does that do if they can't then walk through the door?

Also, most smart door locks are operated over a protocol called ZWave which has a limited range. When people talk about smart lock hacking they are usually talking about RF spoofing of the ZWave signal. You can, of course, hack the bridge device if the bridge device is on Wifi.

Uber, but for hackers in remote parts of the world to connect with someone who will go into the building who's smart lock was just hacked and steal the stuff.

Indeed.

But the practice has somewhat backfired. Some members of the general public now erroneously believe that any image lacking a watermark is a public works.

For one specific anecdote, a local popular bar lifted an image of their establishment found on Flickr and used it in their marketing materials (posters mostly). When contacted about this by the photographer, the establishment claimed due to the lack of watermark and being their establishment they were well within their rights to use the photograph. They eventually agreed to stop using it as a "gesture of goodwill" (but never paid for it, and weren't sued as the cost of even small claims was likely higher than the damages).

You read stories like this often if you hang out on photography forums. The general public seem to conflate a watermark with copyright and a lack of watermark with a public works. Basic copyright needs to be taught in schools.

It's odd that, in this day and age of ubiquitous and cheap yet very good cameras, the owner or one of the employees didn't just take the photo themselves.

As some one who both owns a DSLR and has a family member with a small business I can tell you very definitively that owning even a good camera and knowing how to take pictures that can be used in marketing materials are two very different things. (I even watched a few photography YouTube channels.... Lol)

Probably just started using a different picture without permission either :/

Adding to this: the obvious problem with relying on a security system that is difficult for the "casual" exploiter but not for the dedicated exploiter is that it only takes one dedicated exploiter to develop and distributes a tool that casuals can easily use, it's game over. Each casual doesn't have to crack their game's copy prevention, remove watermarks, or discover their DVD's encryption key. They just have to all sit back and wait for the first pro to do it and release a tool. I've worked in software companies where I've questioned the efforts we expended on copy prevention, and it's always "yea this is to deter the casual copier", but it's futile because tools.

>I'm sure a mixture of the original computer vision technique plus some smearing on the original image could wash away even these randomly perturbed watermarks.

Absolutely. When I did graphics for a local TV news station, I got very good at quickly cloning away the watermarks on stock photos. Visibly watermarking an image is, at best, a nuisance that deters the lazy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com