https://brand.io/article/spymarks/
We need to inform everyone that this technology can encode database identifiers and enough entropy to uniquely identify you as an author (or downloader).
This extends to other forms of media as well.
It's not really possible to ban steganography, is it?
> That future lies halfway between now and 1984. So let’s stay off that timeline, shall we?
> Call a spymark what it is. A spy tool used to spy on you and everyone you interact with.
Why? I assume by default they are uniquely identifiable, because it just makes sense for them (tracking misuse at the very least), it's trivial to implement and trivial to hide or plausibly deny.
Given that it's an ad company, they want something to connect what you're doing to the rest of their data, and they couldn't possibly keep the old image search results there if they want people to use this.
I don't think that dodgy folks have any issue with registering thousands of IDs. I know that I used to regularly get approached by these Chinese companies that were selling good reviews of my free apps. They did this by having thousands of legit AppleID accounts that would download and rate the app.
I haven't been approached by one of these in a long time. I guess Apple figured out how to put the kibosh on them.
How hard can it be to download a set of real images and generated ones in order to train a model to detect and strip the watermark with minimal perceptual difference?
The textbox below it says Paste image link, but you can actually paste an image from your clipboard here, too.
I suppose it was too convenient.
URLs expand Googlebot’s indexes; pasted images don’t.