AaronElsewhere

AaronElsewhere t1_jbefzz1 wrote

It's not exceptionally revolutionary technology. It's a technique that has been described before.

Yes, if-and-only-if you had the source file before and after information had been embedded, then absolutely you can tell some encrypted data must have been added(but not necessarily what it was).

However, as a third party(say an oppressive government) looking at maybe images published from IPs within your country and trying to determine if any contain encrypted messages, it is conceivably impossible because you don't have the original file. Since compression already introduces a level of noise, if your encrypted message doesn't introduce more noise than is present then a third party can't distinguish an innocuous image with normal artifacts from compression versus those that have artifacts resulting from embedding encrypted information.

If I generate semi original images such as a meme and embed data in those, then third parties don't have any original files to generate hashes of for comparison against. This is where you're misunderstanding how these techniques are applied.

1

AaronElsewhere t1_is7wosa wrote

I didn't make any claims about its harm to the environment, merely pointing your misuse of terminology. One does not necessarily imply the other. Trash is trash regardless of whether it's inert or degradable. If it's in the environment then it's pollution. Just because it doesn't release chemicals doesn't presume it still can't harm the environment. If someone dumps a pile of shit covered biodegradable diapers in your lawn, what are you gonna call that dumbass?

1