• wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    They probably have a machine that trawls the internet for mentions of itself, then extracts the IP of whoever posted them, builds a profile on their entire web activity, links it to all the personally identifiable information that can be found on them online, then hacks into their devices and starts recording them through their own camera, mic, wifi, etc., and possibly mails them a brand new pager with custom modifications.

    So yeah, can’t really blame the OOP for censoring the acronym…

    • Axolotl@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Yeah but even google lens can understand what’s written, imagine if their tech couldn’t lmao

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Scanning every jpeg on the internet with OCR would require far more compute than simply doing a regex for plaintext.

        Also that white line can really fuck with most lightweight OCRs

        • Axolotl@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Yeah but we are following their theory so i guess we just ignore that for now (I know it’s stupid and would take so much processing power)

          • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I mean maybe they do have enough compute to run OCR with character-correction on every image format file on the internet. If we’re just speculating then we might as well speculate about that.

            But like, seatbelts don’t prevent every death. We still wear them though, because the reduction of risk is still significant.

            The fact is, catching an acronym appearing in images requires a much larger funnel than catching it in plaintext. And catching it with a white line through it on those images requires a larger funnel than without.

            It reduces the attack surface. Maybe there’s still an attack surface, but if it’s much smaller then it’s still worth it.

            • Axolotl@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              You may aswell just censor it better, as said, Google’s OCR can easly detect it (i just tested lmao) it wouldn’t be hard at all for them to get the OCR text and scan for acronyms if they have enough resources

              • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                Yeah but the point is that trawling the entire internet and scanning every single image with OCR would take way more compute than just scanning particular images on demand which is what happens when you test it on google.

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I’ll just copy/paste my reply to a different comment:

        Scanning every jpeg on the internet with OCR would require far more compute than simply doing a regex for plaintext.

        Also that white line can really fuck with most lightweight OCRs

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        My same response to the other comments applies here too:

        Scanning every jpeg on the internet with OCR would require far more compute than simply doing a regex for plaintext.

        Also that white line can really fuck with most lightweight OCRs