The fact that the watermark detection algorithm doesn't seem to require a tremendous amount of processing power unlike most image processing/detection algorithms - apparently it's present in scanners and photocopiers too - implies that it could also be embedded in camera firmware, making it very possible to produce cameras that refuse to take pictures of certain things... I find that more unsettling since scanners/photocopiers are somewhat more specialist equipment today, whereas practically everyone has at least one camera. Imagine not being able to take a picture of something crucial like a crime in progress because there happened to be something watermarked present in the scene. That's why I don't believe in leaving these types of moral decisions to the machine.
I think it's only the legal issues that keep people from RE'ing the algorithm and generating obviously-non-banknote images which get detected, in a similar spirit to this:
Wait, so you are against the new PROTECT system that scans all images for signs of child sexual abuse and blocks and reports any images containing those signs? Why do you love child abuse images so much? Why are you protecting child molesters? Are you are a pedophile?
All said with a /s, but with a serious question. What happens when we reach a point where the software and hardware exist to do this? Many hosting providers are already doing something similar as well. I believe they work by taking a image hash and comparing it to a known database, but the newer hashes work even as the images are slowly modified.
Would there be any way to stand against this trend without being demonized?
Similar is the argument that anyone who wants privacy/freedom is either a criminal, terrorist, or hacker (cracker)... but "think of the children" evokes such an emotive response among most of the population that it's difficult to counter.
I'm just glad we're not at the level of "open-source image processing software and hardware enables banknote counterfeiting" yet...
> Would there be any way to stand against this trend without being demonized?
Every political position is demonized by its opponents. The ones that are successful are championed by people that persevere even though they are demonized. (That is not, of course, to say that all those with such champions are successful, however.)
I think it's only the legal issues that keep people from RE'ing the algorithm and generating obviously-non-banknote images which get detected, in a similar spirit to this:
http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/03/images-fool-computer...
As the watermark detection algorithm is not that resource-intensive, I would guess that a false positive is even easier to produce.