Spymarks just seem like another word for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography. On that note, one way we can prevent it is to assert that all our content is byte-for-byte identical with the last known trusted stage of what we have produced (for example: a camera we are certain does not watermark, an image editor we are certain doesn't watermark, an image compressor we are certain can't watermark, etc). One vector that I am particularly concerned about is social media. Most images and videos uploaded to most social media is re-compressed by the target platform. This is a door to tracking that is far too easy for social media platforms to open. They might rationalize it (if discovered/announced) by saying that our memes won't be reposted, images or work stolen, etc... but honestly I'd rather my work be stolen than tracking information inserted in there. Oh, we also have stuff which is way more secure, like time-stamped cryptographic signatures.
> Spymarks just seem like another word for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/…" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/…
Stop using links instead of words. Your comment is literally unreadable without going on to other websites.
It was cropped to just displaying as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wi" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wi.. on my mobile screen - so not really readable here.
Retro_Dev · · focus · HN ↗
wodenokoto · · focus · HN ↗
Stop using links instead of words. Your comment is literally unreadable without going on to other websites.
zxexz · · focus · HN ↗
faithful_droog · · focus · HN ↗
Normal_gaussian · · focus · HN ↗
lozf · · focus · HN ↗
(Edit: hmm, without the "https://" it seems to depend on the browsers ability to recognise a URL.)
abustamam · · focus · HN ↗
"for stenography (link)"
Or to use another HNism
"Stenography[1]"
Those interested could click it, those not could still read the comment.
TeMPOraL · · focus · HN ↗