Your right that we really can’t remove stuff fast enough. There will almost always be a copy somewhere.
> Kevin responded again, insisting that Pornhub “can NOT” remove content from other sites. However, that doesn’t seem to be completely accurate. Pornhub offers something called its “exclusive model program,” which promises that it will send takedown notices to any website to “help protect your content from being uploaded to other websites.”
I am not sure that PornHub actually hosts those thumbnails or necessarily controls them. Sending a takedown notice indicates to me that they don't control that content. They would just be requesting removal.
The problem is that PH didn't actually remove the thumbnails.
Is removing _all_ traces of this video even a tractable problem?
A court can order videos or thumbnails matching the hash to be removed, and levy penalties against anyone still hosting them after a period of time.
It’s a less complex problem than policing use of copyrighted music on YouTube videos, and that has been achieved.
Sites would be motivated to check it regularly to avoid being out of compliance.
The same set of values, yes.
> Why would that be? There can be different algorithms, resolutions, crops...
Yes, so you do normalization and reduction before computing the hashes.
And ‘hashes’ doesn’t have to mean literal SHA. Any non-reversible fingerprinting algorithm will do.
the internet definitely remembers forever, unfortunately, especially porn
It seems the problem was / is Google (and not pornhub), because makes it impossible to remove stuff from the internet fast enough to prevent damage. I wonder why the article doesn't consider it. Google should have an on demand mechanism to instantly deletes all text/images that match a fingerprint .