|
But any mathematical function which does not destroy information can be reversed to recover that information. It may not be practicable to do it by brute force in some instances, eg public key encryption, but it is not impossible. A mathematical function which has parameters that has at most a few tens (or at most hundreds) of thousands total combinations isn't even the beginning of a challenge. Just bloody tedious waiting for a result.
And even if, as is inevitable when mapping mathematically "real" numbers onto an integer data space, some information is destroyed, that "destroyed" data remains potentially recoverable, if a sufficiently large data space can be "explored".
There are an infinite number of infinities. Thus a sufficiently large "finity" (Spellcheck says no such term. LOL) can be considered "infinite" for a given value of "infinite". And an "infinite" data space by definition contains "all" data.
The technological advances in image capture and information transmission, (bigger and faster) as any type of number crunching make it possible to explore larger and larger "infinities" and thus in this instance make an anonymous miscreant "onymous" (nope not there either :P ).
The uber-forensics (extracting faces from a small handful of pixels) we see on TV are impossible for single images from security video. This is a mathematically provable fact.
However, in my more stoned moments, I have considered the possibility of using multiple sequential images to recover that lost information. By mathematically overlaying a sequence of "pixelated" images, the averaging of the "infinite resolution" of "reality" in each pixel of a, say 50 odd pixel face, in each frame would be an averaging of different patches of "reality". 25% saturation in a single pixel might equal a pale grey, but a pattern of 0%, 25%, 25%, 25% 0% in the same "average pixel" in subsequent frames, would more likely be a white dot on a black background, or part of an intersecting white line. Oversimplified to glory I know, (I'm a synthesist, not a specialist.) but I hope the general idea is getting across. (Especially to any mathematicians if the idea hasn't been considered yet. :D )
And a singular beauty of the hypothesis, is that if it works at all, it will work for virtually any sufficiently large, or information rich, (ie variable, but known background) sequence of images. One thing it might lead to is visually "noisy" but nonetheless mathematically precise backgrounds in sensitive monitored spaces.
The smart way to hide information you never want to be revealed is to "destroy" it utterly. For images, pixelation (combine and average multiple pixels to make a larger pixel) or complete blanking of an entire region, is the usual method for both the black and white hats.
And if my thoughts above are correct then even that is suspect (or not true at all) for moving images. Only utter destruction of information is sufficient to irreversibly mask any given "identifiable" portion of an image and a large enough sequence of such images. Including blacking/blanking of any potentially reflective surface with the right angle of incidence to reflect the offender, or something forensically linkable to that offender in each frame, whilst maintaining a child porno's "aesthetic/arousing" qualities, would become almost as interesting, a mathematical problem as unmasking the "hidden information" would be. Really there's not much point to being a skiting prick if the result of keeping your actual person unidentifiable might as well have been drawn with driveway chalks on wet pebblecrete. Did you (and not you in particular if you want to be pointlessly offended) remember the freckles on your arse BTW?
What is very, very dumb here, is Interpol revealing what they'd done, if this technique (swirling, or other Photoshop function) of concealment is in regular (no matter how infrequent) use. Granted, eventually all will be revealed in court. However, in the intervening interval, they have given up a valuable tool for catching these people. Particularly since they could "skite" about their ingenuity (Especially the "spooky" staring eye that centering on the pupil created. (THAT would appeal to a certain mentality.)) whilst trolling chatrooms and other virtual spaces.
Parenthetically: Stranger things have happened, and I don't really believe it for a minute, but it is just barely possible that most instances of government "leaks" that cuase harm rather than "keep the bastards honest", are due to nothing but mindless idiot's patting themselves on the back in front of the media, and then the subsequent shit is merely an 800lb kitten trying to cover up on a tile floor. (I know no "merely" about it. :P )
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(481 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
http://www.interpol.int/Public/THB/vico/Default.asp
