Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Using YouTube For File Storage

timothy posted about a year ago | from the subtitles-are-a-bitch dept.

Youtube 193

First time accepted submitter ememisya writes "Ever thought it might be a good idea to store encrypted data in a QRCode video? Using this technique one could easily store 10GB of data to be available anywhere in the world, and completely free."

cancel ×

193 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ever thought it might be a good idea? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655319)

Ever thought it might be a good idea to store encrypted data in a QRCode video?

Not even a little bit. Now that you mention it though, it does sound like possibly one of the dumber ideas I've heard in quite some time.

Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? (5, Insightful)

ememisya (1548255) | about a year ago | (#43656225)

Ever thought it might be a good idea to store encrypted data in a QRCode video?

Not even a little bit. Now that you mention it though, it does sound like possibly one of the dumber ideas I've heard in quite some time.

So considering a scenario like a student posting Iron Man 3, camera rip and the encryption key as another video onto YouTube, and the links in another forum. Who would be responsible for this copyright infringement? YouTube for having encrypted video data? It could be argued that YouTube is only carrying gibberish video data. The forum? The forum is only containing links to YouTube which is perfectly free to do. Could it be the software for putting the key and the data together? I wouldn't think so, because then any encryption library is responsible for its resulting data. It could be argued that it wouldn't be illegal until the user started writing the actual video onto his/her harddrive, at which point there will be no internet connection to detect anything unusual. Now, I'm a person who believes copying something and taking that copy is different than taking that thing itself, but I know how copyright laws are touchy about these scenarios :) My guess is they would put the pressure on YouTube to detect videos with too many QRCodes in their frames and remove them and it will soon be in their Terms of Service. If enough people abused this method anyways, writing a browser plugin to detect YouTube and offer file uploading options will fire this away to the spiral of doom, sort of like FireSheep and facebook https.

Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? (3, Informative)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year ago | (#43656565)

Who would be responsible for this copyright infringement? YouTube for having encrypted video data? It could be argued that YouTube is only carrying gibberish video data. The forum?

The student who posted it. If you want to get technical, the QR code video on Youtube is not gibberish video data. It's a copy of the movie. It's just a different carrier. Unless you think turning on SSL in bittorrent means you're transmitting gibberish data.

Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? (2)

ememisya (1548255) | about a year ago | (#43656829)

If you want to get technical, the QR code video on Youtube is not gibberish video data. It's a copy of the movie. It's just a different carrier. Unless you think turning on SSL in bittorrent means you're transmitting gibberish data.

How would you prove without the key that the video on YouTube is not gibberish video data?

Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43656577)

In my opinion the mere act of uploading obvious gibberish would be enough of argument for YouTube to delete the video. Same thing if you uploaded a video containing only white noise as the picture: it's there just to waste Google's hard drive space.

Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? (2)

ememisya (1548255) | about a year ago | (#43656787)

LOL absolutely, it's just not something YouTube willingly considered as of yet. Unless you want to push "Dance of the Pixels" artistic value of the video content, then it's perfectly fine to post it.

Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? (1)

killkillkill (884238) | about a year ago | (#43656811)

In my opinion the mere act of uploading obvious gibberish would be enough of argument for YouTube to delete the video

Depending on where you draw the line on gibberish, that could remove nearly all of YouTube's content. Certainly all the "vlogs"

Re:Ever thought it might be a good idea? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656355)

Someone finally finds a use for QR codes, pairs it with social media and cloud based storage...and all you can do is pooh pooh the idea.

I'm writing an iphone app to do this as we speak. This is going to be huge! Where the venture capitalists at? Holla!

Title: "LSD snow-storm" (2)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#43655323)

No wonder your snowy pixel vids are so boring.

Re:Title: "LSD snow-storm" (2)

The_Wilschon (782534) | about a year ago | (#43656085)

The video reminds me of Snow Crash. Be careful. It could eat your brain!

Lolzers. (5, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#43655329)

I'm sure Youtube will _never_ notice this and your foolproof plan will be good for all time.

You might be OK with some steganography, but otherwise they will thwart you if more than a few people do this.

Re:Lolzers. (4, Insightful)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#43655455)

The fact that you can have the "super smart encrypted content" taken down with a moments notice by serving a bogus DMCA never entered the submitters mind.

Re:Lolzers. (3, Informative)

tverbeek (457094) | about a year ago | (#43656109)

Yeah, this is a textbook example* of how relying on an outside "cloud" service – especially one that you have no contractual control over – to store your data is a really dumb idea.

*OK, maybe it's just in the teacher's edition.

Re:Lolzers. (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#43656475)

No its an example of how naively relying on an uncontracted outside "cloud" service is a really dumb idea.

Now imagine you split your data up into a Set of messages, which can be recovered by any sufficiently large subset of more than N messages? This is what tahoe lafs does, typically using 10 messages, any 6 of which can recover the original.... of course its all encrypted too.

Then all you need is some process which periodically checks the messages and ensures that you always have some threshold (which should really be larger than N, by at least a few).

There is also no need for QR codes to be used, thats another example of naive use. It would actually be vastly more efficient to encode the data differently, but, encoding in such ways as to not be easily detected and removed by youtube could be tricky. However, if you could find a way to minimally disguise the data so it just looks like hours of terribly boring video (like, video of your pet fish)....

Shit you could probably just keep re-uploading the same fish video with differently encoded data and new names....nobody is going to examine hours of fish swimming to determine where the loop is or whether the two videos are of the same loop.

Re:Lolzers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656873)

Making the videos private never entered your mind?

Re:Lolzers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655741)

You might be OK with some steganography

Probably not since the videos will be processed to adjust quality, resolution etc. That will lead to some data loss/change that'll corrupt the hidden data.

Re:Lolzers. (0)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#43655915)

RTFA. He's using a bunch of images of QR codes, which have built in error correction.

Re:Lolzers. (1)

tom17 (659054) | about a year ago | (#43656071)

RTFC. He's replying to a suggestion of using some steganography :)

Re:Lolzers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656073)

RTFA. He's using a bunch of images of QR codes, which have built in error correction.

GP was referring to GGP's suggestion to use steganography instead of QR codes. Context is important, you should pay attention to it.

Re:Lolzers. (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43656625)

RTFA. He's using a bunch of images of QR codes, which have built in error correction.

Derp. The comment you replied to wasn't directly commenting the article but a reply to RightSaidFred99's comment about using steganography.

Re:Lolzers. (1)

necro81 (917438) | about a year ago | (#43656651)

Unfortunately, I don't think you could count on steganography. YouTube transcodes, resizes, and manipulates the raw video fifty ways till sunday - whatever information you've stored in the frames could easily be lost or corrupted. What is more, you have to worry about playback problems: dynamic bitrates, dropped frames, and the like. By the time you add in all the checksums, error correcting code, and other data to make the system robust, you'd probably end up with a 10-minute video just to transmit a few hundred bytes of data. You'd do better to do something clever with the subtitles.

Steganography works quite well when you have access to the actual file, preferably in its entirety. This technique might even work under controlled conditions. But I seriously doubt that one could make it work robustly in the real world. (If you want to consider that a challenge and prove me wrong by making it work, by all means.)

Re:Lolzers. (1)

ememisya (1548255) | about a year ago | (#43656739)

I'm sure Youtube will _never_ notice this and your foolproof plan will be good for all time.

You might be OK with some steganography, but otherwise they will thwart you if more than a few people do this.

What about downloading pamphlets, or videos without the need for internet connection? I can see this being used in super markets, download using your camera, no more contracts with cell service providers. Before FireSheep, Facebook didn't serve https that willingly, either way it's good for ever improving security of the internet.

Re:Lolzers. (1)

Rhacman (1528815) | about a year ago | (#43656795)

Hopefully if people do this they will at least have the decency to flag the videos as private. If I find myself directed to a video that is clearly just a dummy video for conveying steganography I'll be among those hitting the "report" button.

DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655349)

Until you get hit by a DMCA Takedown notice and your files are gone forever

a bit too blatant (5, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43655359)

If you start uploading videos to YouTube with nothing but frames of QR codes, you're pretty likely to have your account closed and the videos deleted.

It would be more robust if you made the video look like something that could plausibly be on YouTube as a "normal" video, even if it's something really boring. Probably especially if it's something really boring. Record one of your pets and use the low-order bits of the video and/or audio to steganographically include some data.

Re:a bit too blatant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655429)

The low-order bits are likely to be scrambled when YouTube converts, scales and recodes your video.

Re:a bit too blatant (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655731)

Which can be avoided if you follow their documentation. [google.com]

Encodings which match their specifications won't be re-encoded (only the down-scaled versions will).

Re:a bit too blatant (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43656713)

A local encoder might still mess up things enough.

Re:a bit too blatant (1)

Bigby (659157) | about a year ago | (#43655957)

All you need is a way to determine a key that could be used given the source and encrypted target. This would be a little different than cracking an encrypted document, because the source is known.

That way you can turn anything into "Risk Astley - Never Going To Give You Up". There would just be a generated key that can be used to decrypt it to your original source.

Re:a bit too blatant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656701)

The key would have to be as long as the plaintext in the general case for such an approach, so distributing the key is no easier than distributing the original message.

Re:a bit too blatant (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656315)

So this is what this is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZZ7oFKsKzY
The world makes sense again.

Re:a bit too blatant (1)

ememisya (1548255) | about a year ago | (#43656753)

If you start uploading videos to YouTube with nothing but frames of QR codes, you're pretty likely to have your account closed and the videos deleted.

It would be more robust if you made the video look like something that could plausibly be on YouTube as a "normal" video, even if it's something really boring. Probably especially if it's something really boring. Record one of your pets and use the low-order bits of the video and/or audio to steganographically include some data.

You are right, as far as I know, no QRCode detection is happening on YouTube as of yet, perhaps this post will help them improve their security in providing their service.

Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655381)

Wow this is dumb. I used to think YENC in the days of 7-bit ASCII newsgroups was inefficient, but this is even worse. Why would one ever want to do this?

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. (5, Insightful)

i_ate_god (899684) | about a year ago | (#43655553)

what ever happened to the hacker mentality these days?

they would do it, BECAUSE THEY CAN. A reason so valid that it I shouldn't have to be here telling you about it.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655721)

Are you Captain Kirk? This reminds me of the only good reason to climb a mountain.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43656011)

Are you Captain Kirk? This reminds me of the only good reason to climb a mountain.

After your first sentence, I thought that was his remark on the subject of why bang genetically or even anatomically incompatible aliens.

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655861)

Pssst....we're over at Hacker News these days.

Re: Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656237)

Apropos that, have you considered storing 10gb of data as uuencoded hackernews comments?

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about a year ago | (#43656351)

Just checked out the website.

The articles are quite similar to the ones here, but minimal discussion on articles from days ago.

Also I'm personally not a fan of the advertise placement on that site (which is also the reason I don't read techdirt much).

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. (3, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year ago | (#43656277)

Because it's not a particularly clever or interesting "because we can".

Re:Wow... worse than old usenet binaries. (1)

repvik (96666) | about a year ago | (#43656729)

Storing a lot of data on Youtube can be done. It can be done in a hacky and good way - and it can be done in a shitty, QR-code, spacewasting way.

right... (2, Insightful)

Ian 0x57 (688051) | about a year ago | (#43655393)

sure..until they compress it for you or change formats or ..... and screw it up.

Re:right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655473)

Correct. They transcode the video when you upload. I tried to do the same thing with AOL buddy icons back in the day but they reformat and resize on upload so you lose your stego

Re:right... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#43655551)

Just make sure that those QR frames ARE your data. Who cares if someone else reads it, too? It's encrypted, after all.

Re:right... (2)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about a year ago | (#43655585)

sure..until they compress it for you or change formats or ..... and screw it up.

This isn't steganography. As long as you create your video such that the artifacts of compression won't make your codes unreadable, it doesn't matter if Youtube does something like that.

Re:right... (2)

Tarlus (1000874) | about a year ago | (#43656001)

QR's will look the same regardless of video format. If the resolution gets really scrunched down or if frame rates get jacked up in the conversion process, then it could be a wasted effort, but YouTube's internal conversion algorithms seem to be pretty effective these days. ...wait, am I defending the idea behind this article?

Re:right... (3, Informative)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year ago | (#43656117)

QR codes error correction [wikipedia.org] is quite resilient. Even with heavy spatial/temporal compression, the data should still be recoverable. There are far better ways of hiding data than this, however.

Re:right... (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43656151)

We're not talking about steganography or some other form of hiding data in a delicate manner that can be broken when typical practices like those you've cited are applied. We're talking about having frames that consist entirely of a QR codes [wikipedia.org] , which should be reasonably resistant to compression, format changes, lowered resolutions, and other issues of that sort. So long as the QR code can still be easily made out, you can still get your data out.

Clearly, if they compressed it so heavily that it was just a gray mess, it'd be a problem, but I don't think that's likely to be an issue.

Re:right... (5, Informative)

CrashandDie (1114135) | about a year ago | (#43656617)

Have you ever used a QRCode? Ever noticed that most algorithms don't recognise the QRCode when it's sharpest and level with your screen? Usually, you don't have the time to have the code be level, or in focus, before the algorithm picks it up.

That's because QRCode are nigh indestructible. They could add a watermark [wikipedia.org] and the code would most probably still be readable (depending on the level of error correction you apply when encoding).

For example, I took one of the Wikimedia QRCode examples [wikimedia.org] , and drew on it [postimg.org] . It still worked. Then I skewed the image [postimg.org] using MS Paint. It still worked. Then I decided to go from 172 pixels to 86 pixels [postimg.org] (using MS Paint's resize function). It still worked (zoomed to either 100% or 200%). Then I decided to "reduce its resolution", so to speak, by resizing that reduced image to 200%, then back to 50%, then back to 200%, etc for 4 or 5 times, until I ended up with this [postimg.org] . It still worked.

Now, I'm sure that I *wanted* this to work. There will be dozens of cases where even the most stupid tear of paper or poor lighting will prevent that QRCode from being decoded. But somehow, I don't think that YouTube's HD video encoding will be much of an issue for QRCodes.

Tested with QR Droid on a Wiko Cink King, scanning off a 23" 1080p screen.

Re:right... (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year ago | (#43656681)

I think the principle of the QRCode blocks is like a bar code or those fill-in-the-bubble tests; If it isn't almost completely filled, it is considered empty

I already have a better solution. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655405)

I store mine in the Linux source code comments. Nobody has ever noticed.

Great! Now Al-Qaeda has YouTube technology. :-( (2)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | about a year ago | (#43655409)

Just add encryption. Hide in plain site. A new way for spies and terrorist to communicate! Reminds me of the Conet Project [archive.org] . More at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] . It's fascinating listening to the weird shortwave.

Re:Great! Now Al-Qaeda has YouTube technology. :-( (3, Insightful)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#43655589)

First of all, what the fuck is up with using the subject for half the reply? Seriously, cut it out. You people look like retards.

Hiding stuff in plain sight has never been very hard, you don't need youtube for that. Anything connected to the 'net is pretty much hidden in plain sight, no need to involve a millions-of-users-per-month website, when a simple IP distributed would do the trick just as fine.
Encryption is no secret, no matter what the feds tell you, the ban en exports of encryption algorithms has not made the rest of the world go sans encryption. The example in the article is about the dumbest security idea since, shit i don't know... ever?

Re:Great! Now Al-Qaeda has YouTube technology. :-( (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about a year ago | (#43656627)

I'm inclined to agree with your rant about using the comment for half the reply, but at least the dude you replied to had a complete sentence in the subject. Splitting a sentence between the subject and the beginning of the comment is the worst.

eir comment in the subject. :-( (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656807)

No, I think the worse is the people who finish th

Great! Now Cenan is upset with us. :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656797)

First of all, what the fuck is up with using the subject for half the reply? Seriously, cut it out. You people look like retards.

No, we don't :D

You're totally right about the title reply! (2)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about a year ago | (#43656801)

Mod parent up! :)

Awesome Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655431)

Until your files get taken down with a DMCA. Good luck trying to prove it's not just background music in your baby video.

Aha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655439)

I finally have a safe place to store all of my downloaded youtube videos! It's nearly time for my master plan to be set into action! With this I can uh...I really didn't think this through. Whatever I'll figure out the evil part later. Just be afraid MAFIAA because now I can hide content on youtube.

What's the benefit? (1)

Picass0 (147474) | about a year ago | (#43655445)

You'll need a specialized client to trap this information with a barcode scanner, buffer and really good QR read times. And then what? What is gained using this method for file distribution vs. downloading from one of the bazzilion free web file hosting sites?

Re:What's the benefit? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#43655595)

Well, you could just use one of the common plugins to download the video file and process it later. Although I do agree with you on the whole thing being a little bit elaborate for something that's basically available for free. Google drive gives you 5 GB for free. MS Skydrive gives you 7GB. that already easily surpasses the 10 GB proposed by this method. Get multiple accounts for each (it's not difficult) and get as much cloud storage as you want for free.

Re:What's the benefit? (2)

networkBoy (774728) | about a year ago | (#43655969)

Ah, but this *could* be a good one to many broadcast of information. Have a botnet receive C&C directives this way?
You could even post the QR code in a corner of the video, or embed it in the video data as an alpha channel.

reprimand? (1)

cornjones (33009) | about a year ago | (#43655447)

I wonder if he will have to pay for the (already terrilbly) slashdotted vt.edu servers that have just melted between serving a wiki entry and video posted there.

Uhhh.... no. (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | about a year ago | (#43655505)

Sounds like a lot of trouble for something that can be easily and more securely done with any several of free services like Dropbox, Box, Google Drive, Windows SkyDrive, Ubuntu One, etc.

Re:Uhhh.... no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655601)

All of those sites require an account, and a login, to access the data. YouTube is available anywhere, to anyone, and would not (normally) be blocked by firewalls or examined by DPI.

-- MdNght - HaXor --

Re:Uhhh.... no. (1)

PIBM (588930) | about a year ago | (#43655763)

I've seen youtube blocked much more than multiple free or not file drop services in corporate firewalls..

Re:Uhhh.... no. (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#43655975)

I've got a web proxy that blocks any page with t-w-i-t-t-e-r or y-o-u-t-u-b-e anywhere in the URL. I mean, I have no love for twits twitting, but that's going to far. I had to hack the URL just to see this thread.

Re:Uhhh.... no. (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | about a year ago | (#43656059)

A simpler approach would be to use a free web hosting service, and drop your encrypted data in there. Easy access from anywhere without needing to sign in.

Re:Uhhh.... no. (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43656545)

Free web hosting... Yeah... sticks out like a sore thumb in a browse log, though.

10GB Free, Wow! (2)

s1d3track3D (1504503) | about a year ago | (#43655537)

I don't have the time to list how many cloud storage providers offer (at least) 10GB free

Re:10GB Free, Wow! (1)

second_coming (2014346) | about a year ago | (#43655645)

create a few dropbox accounts, piss easy

Re:10GB Free, Wow! (3, Informative)

ag0ny (59629) | about a year ago | (#43655839)

Have you been hiding under a rock for the last few months? Mega [mega.co.nz] gives you 50GB for free.

Re:10GB Free, Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656649)

Maybe learn how to read?

Re:10GB Free, Wow! (1)

ememisya (1548255) | about a year ago | (#43656769)

This is more about seeing YouTube side by side with Mega Upload than actually YouTube offering you that same service, which isn't what YouTube was intended for.

Re:10GB Free, Wow! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655937)

Sometimes I really wonder why I still bother coming here, other than to watch blind people discuss the sunset and deaf people argue about music...

Ever thought that maybe YouTube is capable of holding more than one video at a time, and that the 10GB is per video?

No?

Thought not...

Pssst - Google doesn't actually make this hard (2)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#43655561)

Or you could just, y'know, upload it to Google Docs and make it public, without playing all the games.

For small amounts of data (in the few-GB range), you can host crap in a bazillion places online for free. No need to send yourself 400 multi-part uuencoded emails these days to "sneak" it past the storage provider.

This is as idiotic (0)

mapkinase (958129) | about a year ago | (#43655565)

This is as idiotic as storing data on DNA.

So go ahead.

Re:This is as idiotic (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43655883)

Bacterial DNA data storage actually makes more sense because each time the bacteria reproduces, it makes a copy of your data. It also actively corrects data corruption because mutated DNA is more likely to result in that particular organism dying, so to get your data back, you just need to read a bunch of samples and discard the ones that are not like the rest.

Re:This is as idiotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656263)

But the data storage DNA is likely to be "junk DNA", and mutations happen constantly. What is needed is robust error correction in any DNA data storage.

Re:This is as idiotic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656397)

And you can conveniently store your porn on your own junk.

DataMatrix better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655659)

You could get more data in there with DataMatrix 2D barcode instead of QRCode.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655663)

There goes my storage system now.

But really, you could still store loads of data without being noticed, private accounts with text on screen, computer voice singing your data, AR procedural markers that parsed in a certain way leads to a scene being constructed, etc.
Being a moron filling every frame with QR won't work. Also, create your system pretty much secures you against scans for public methods.

Genius idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43655905)

How long would it take to re-encode Game of Thrones as video using this QR code technique and upload it to Youtube?

I found a QSR code burned into my toast (5, Funny)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year ago | (#43655971)

I found a QSR code burned into my toast. My cellphone read it, and it said "Jesus"

Re:I found a QSR code burned into my toast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656785)

Clearly His Noodly Appendage [wikipedia.org] put it there as a test of your faith.

This is like (3, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#43655977)

Using Youtube to store your files is like using your neighbors car for storing you beer without asking. Odds are that one of these days it won't be there when you really want it.

Static? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656147)

I love the idea, what a great proof as well. That was pretty cool. What about doing this without the corner markers at the beginning of a short film it would appear as if you were trying to be trendy with some static at the beginning and end. You could make it a couple of frames. Granted you'd have to screen grab the bits and then add your corner markers.

Video Storage (1)

Hoch (603322) | about a year ago | (#43656161)

I'll bet it is really good at video storage!

I already coded that thing for myself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656207)

Last year i had that same idea, it became more than just a QR code but a full blown remote boock device driver for linux which i can boot virtual machines from.

I don't have the skills to transform this into an EFI module yet. But booting a whole computer using Youtube as a hard drive should be feasible.

Data should be properly encrypted and kept secret, the encryption key stored inside the TMP chip and hopefully then you just have to remember the video ID for every of your hard drives.

One could even implement a RAID version of that for load balancing fragments of the same data over multiple providers for better secrecy and resilience.

Also i can assume one could use that as NFS mounts or whatever for self expanding cloud storage purposes.

Now Trending (1)

puddingebola (2036796) | about a year ago | (#43656215)

Now Trending on Youtube, user account information from the Playstation Network. 1,000,000 views.

R Tape loading error, 0:1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656407)

Why bother with QR codes, when you can upload anything with ZX-Spectrum tape as soundtrack.

Been there done that (kind of) :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43656507)

I had a similar idea a couple of years ago, but for data transfer between mobile devices, and hacked together a prototype for the Over the Air hackathon - albeit without the cloud storage angle, which is a nice twist. Head here to check it out: http://stephendnicholas.com/archives/310

Thumbs up for shameless self promotion?

Been there done that (kind of)... (2)

stephendnicholas (2917247) | about a year ago | (#43656555)

I had a similar idea a couple of years ago, but for data transfer between mobile devices, and hacked together a prototype for the Over the Air hackathon - albeit without the cloud storage angle, which is a nice twist. Head here to check it out: http://stephendnicholas.com/archives/310 [stephendnicholas.com] Thumbs up for shameless self promotion? Even more shameless now not anonymous :)

VHS (1)

kliklik (322798) | about a year ago | (#43656615)

In the old days there was a system for AMIGA for storing data on VHS tapes. Quick googling finds this: http://www.hugolyppens.com/VBS.html [hugolyppens.com] They claim a gigantic storage capacity of 85MB of data per hour of video :)

10Gb? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43656633)

Using this technique one could easily store 10GB of data to be available anywhere in the world, and completely free.

Which orifice did that number get pulled out of?

Also, "easily"? Compared to, say, setting up a couple of Gmail accounts and sending yourself some attachments?

Unreliable ToS dependent data storage (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#43656697)

Your data is compressed so you have to work around that, and it can be removed at any time if they believe you are violating the Terms of Service. Almost certainly, this does. It's not worth the hassle. It certainly isn't worth it for anything serious. Just go to one of the many existing free storage sites and encrypt the files before you put them there if it's something private. If you need more offsite storage, stick a crow bar in your wallet and pay for it, cheapskates.

amiga Video Back Up System... ? (2)

nanahuatzin (1363965) | about a year ago | (#43656897)

ahhh! this made me remember my old ( ancient?) amiga 500 computer... circa 1988. It was the day of 30 mb hard drives, so the idea to use video to store info was attractive, so it came the "Video BAck Up System". http://www.hugolyppens.com/VBS.html [hugolyppens.com] You connected the video output of you amiga to a VHS tape recorder (beta also could be used). The software let you selected which parts of your hard drive wish to back up, so when you were ready, the computer would record bands of black and white video to tape. The vhs tape could hold... errr 85MB per hour, and that was a lot!!! The interesting part was restoring the backup, it was connected to the serial port... so probably this was the main limitation of the system. It was a very interesting hack :) I still have some VHS tape with data...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>