Our printers have been spying on us for years, but soon we may be revealing our identity when we publicly post pictures we take with our digital cameras.
According to Jessica Fridrich, the holder of two new patents related to digital image fingerprinting, she has been able to statistically show whether or not a particular camera took a picture in question. She asserts that each camera has a unique signature in the way it captures the image and that this signature will be visible in every image that the camera takes. If true, this brings up many privacy concerns; it is most certainly beneficial to individuals, and society in general, to be able to post pictures anonymously.
Computer images are just a long string of RGB values, which are easily modifiable. What if we were to randomize those values within a small delta (using appropriate software)? If the delta were small enough, the change would be unnoticeable to the human eye, but would render any statistical analysis for identification purposes impossible.
Here's some python code to test my theory.
Here's an example test I ran. This is a scaled down copy of the original image (click the image for the original one):
Here's the same image run through at delta = 2:
Here's the same image run through at delta = 20:
Here's the same image run through at delta = 100... Now it's really grainy (click the image to see it better):
Obviously, you want to pick the right delta level. I personally can't see much of a difference between the original and delta=2. The question is: at what point does the image lose its "statistical identity"? I would tend to think that it would lose the identity at even delta=2. At delta = 100 the picture becomes really grainy (although at low resoultion it's easy to miss) ... When it comes time for the revolution though, I think we'll have more important things to worry about than grainy pictures.
I'm pretty critical when it comes to the IRS, and I'm sure many people would think my beliefs on the IRS (short answer: abolishment) are too extreme. However, Congressman Ron Paul has recently spoken on this issue and has a very compelling argument that few would be able to refute:
Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion – a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?
He is talking about what would happen if we were to completely abolish the IRS today. What would happen? The US would have 1/3 less cash than it would otherwise, but the remaining 2/3 would still be more than the entire 2000 budget. This points out two things to me:
- The IRS would be really easy to reform, if not outright abolish. The Government would still have a plethora of avenues to aquire revenue, including constitutional methods: tarrifs and excise taxes. Even if we just abolished the IRS and did nothing else, the government would still have as much incoming revenue as it did in 2000!
- If the government would have the same revenue as it did in 2000 by cutting out an entire 1/3 of the budget, what does that say about the government's spending habits?? That means a massive increase in the budget in just the past six years.
What is so important that we're doing now that we weren't doing back in 2000? The war? Not many today will argue that anymore. We can end the war, we can get rid of all the pork spending in Washington if our Congressman are allowed to at least read the bills before they're passed and by so doing we can easily restore this nation to using constitutional methods of taxation. It just takes a bit of (re-)education:
[Education] is favourable to liberty. Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights, and where learning is confined to a few people, liberty can be neither equal nor universal. --Dr. Benjamin Rush (1786)
Update: As soon as I posted this, someone mentioned to me after reading the above mentioned article by Mr. Paul that he never specifically mentions abolishing the IRS. True, it wasn't explicit; It was implicit. Mr. Paul speaks out about this a lot, so it's not very difficult to find where he stands on the issue:
By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing. Ron Paul (2002)
If you don't believe the writing on the wall put forth by Ron Paul earlier this week, then how about this: Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker Magazine that President Bush is in secret talks of how to attack Iran, one such plan even includes using Nuclear Bunker-Buster type weapons:
"One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites."
You can also read a shorter Yahoo! news synposis.
The Raw Story writes that it is assumed that the New York Times will release an article tomorrow that asserts that four anonymous Pentagon officials or other beaurocrats are refuting the story... well it's easy for someone to say it's untrue if your anonymous.
In the New Yorker story it even mentions that Bush is in the habit of calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "a potential Adolf Hitler." --- The progoganda has already started.
In light of all the news of Department of Homeland Security Deputy Press Secretary Brian Doyle's arrest for "using a computer to seduce a child", Becky Ackers over at LewRockwell.com brings up an interesting point.. one that is easily obscured when deep emotions are involved:
Actually, regardless of the crimes Brian has committed against our freedom and the Constitution, he is innocent of the felonies for which he was arrested. He did nothing but email pornography to another, very willing adult, one who eagerly responded and who played on his emotions by pretending to have survived cancer. True, Brian "believed" the cop to be a 14-year-old girl, but only fascists prosecute a man for his thoughts.
Whether or not you approve of soliciting minors in sexual situations, technically, that is not what Mr. Doyle did. It may be difficult to see the corruption here because of how you may feel about the supposed issue, but take another look and you will see that the issue that most people are seeing is not really there.
This sounds like something out of a Phillip K. Dick novel... being apprehended for one's thoughts. Think about that for a while.
I've been far too long away from this blog. Things are rapidly changing and I need to stay on top of it.
At lunch today, I had a nice heated discussion about individual sovereignty, what constitutes a "right", and why the income tax is evil. The key point I tried to make was as Thomas Jefferson said:
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
Today, I read Ron Paul's speech before congress on Wednesday. This speech is powerful. It makes me angry. It makes me so fucking tired of all of the ignorance of this country (mine included!) and it's desire to forget and feel secure and cozy when it is so very close to falling down to it's deepest inhuman low. The United States has too quickly forgotten the false pretenses that we used to enter into a conflict with Iraq, for we are doing it again with Iran. Not only does Congress seem all too willing to add to the more than 100,000 deaths in the conflict with Iraq, it stands ready to subvert our Constitution and all reason, by allowing the executive branch to control the fate of our lives, possessions, and liberty.
I have so many times before "drawn the line", but I do it again: The Line is Drawn HERE.
No longer will I stand idly by, I will take action. I promise myself to do the following:
- Pledge the maximum contribution I can make by law to the Congressional campaign of Michael Badnarik before his election in November. Michael is the best hope we have to restore liberty (or at least keep it's destruction in check). It doesn't matter if you live in Texas district 10 or not, a contribution to Michael is the most important money I have ever spent. With the current political climate in Texas right now, he has an incredible chance of victory... a chance that may not come easily in the future if current trends continue.
- I admit that I am a fairly introverted individual. I have strong convictions, but I tend not to make, nor keep, friends easily. I will gently, but consitently, introduce people to my beliefs and concerns for this country. This includes introducing people to websites like: Lew Rockwell, Hammer of Truth and of course that of Michael Badnarik.
- And most importantly, I will blog here more often. Something that I have come to realize more and more is that Blogging, and the Internet in general, is probably the most important and powerful force in defence of our liberty. My Employer, and good friend, introduced me to an article today in a local newspaper that shows how powerful blogging has become, if from a different perspective: the local media has found blogs to be debasing it's authority and 'eminant' domain (I'm not 100% sure this is the one he was refering to, but the point is made).
I cannot compare myself to those that have fought or even died to aquire or protect our liberty, but I have a sincere desire to add my name, my pledge of "life, fortune, and sacred honor" to it's cause.
« Previous Page