Backing up data to YouTube

>>56223841
Doesn't Youtube's compression and encoding fuck up your data?

It would take some fine-tuning to get the biggest amount of data in the shortest video file while youtube won't fuck it up.

>>56223841
Youtube might remove the videos for abuse of their service, too.

>>56223860
this. and once someone notices your videos will be taken down.

So you get shitty unreliable storage that you can read at 1Mbps maximum.
Congrats op, great idea.

>>56223841
Someone has done this already, not sure what it's called. Pretty sure it's just an ffmpeg script

File: snowcrash.jpg (2MB, 2550x3580px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2550x3580px

Snowcrash for videos?

>>56223899
>>56223841
https://valkryst.com/schillsaver/

>>56223860
That makes it harder but not impossible. The real question is: How will youtube react? How much bullshit can you upload before they terminate your account?

If you play your cards right you could maybe even get a popular channel out of it. People have made popular channels for dumber things before, a channel dedicated to just random clips of noise might catch on based on its “novelty” alone.

Btw, another thing you could do is try and upload backups as make-believe “insurance files” on wikileaks etc.

Use github

>>56223909

Can't you just have a bunch of private videos?

>>56223913
this. cool idea to use youtube but seems not practical.

>>56223909
Nobody's gonna do shit about it. They won't terminate your account but since it's owned by an American company they are allowed to ask you to decrypt your files because FBI doesn't like encryption. Although you can leave it raw (unencrypted) but that's a really stupid way to backup files unless they're not important to you. You can still do what >>56223963 said.

>>56223904
wasn't this supposed to be FREE

>>56224107
How would youtube know the files are encrypted?

>>56224367
They wouldn't instantly detect it, but videos like that are always analysed. With all the terrorist bullshit and NSA spying around the Internet I'd be surprised if they ignored a random abstract video like that.

Even better OP, use steganographic techniques to embed the bits of your file into actual video files.

Just record yourself making uninformed opinions about things you have no clue about and upload it to youtube, then hide your backup inside the video in a way that can't easily be detected or distinguished from random atmospheric noise.

This solves >>56224446, >>56223909 and might even get you some subscribers along the way. (Uninformed opinions are basically the way to get popular on youtube)

>>56224540
Good luck talking for 200 hours just to save 1GB of data. OP might have better luck with 10 hour music remixes with a dynamic background that doesn't make it too obvious that it contains data.

really fucking dumb idea considering how compression works and the amount of compression youtube applies to videos.

>>56224367
>>56224367
Why not just use the snowden hash to create more hashes with that as the key. Im sure theres a good reason for that hash. Im sure that he is good with encryption. Im almost certain there is always a purpose. anyway this sounds like snuff video stuff. im out of here.

great show you guys.

>>56224569
helllllooooooo...? what about the aesthetic time?

>>56224574
you just need lots of error correction. also if you're clever enough you can store data losslessly by formatting it correctly (assuming the compression is deterministic.)

>>56223909
You're painfully out of touch with reality if you think your data bullshit is going to be a popular YouTube channel. This is like the day dream of a drunk middle aged woman whos tried unsuccessfully to fucked her boss the last 4 years.

>>56223841
They actually keep the source video. That's why when they switched to 60FPS, already existing 60FPS ones were... well, 60FPS. But only YouTube and the account owner can reach it (Video Manager -> Video -> Source File (not sure about terms as I use it in Turkroachish))

>>56223909
Sink threads all over again.

I'd love to see a lawless anon upload a bunch of hardcore gay porn shit and get popular only for normies to find our once it's popular.

>>56224661
Fairly sure youtube's compression is deterministic. It applies various different filters, and the type of filters it applies depends on the type of content (determined by e.g. your type of channel)

For example “gaming” channels (and videos uploaded through the youtube “gaming” interface) use far less aggressive noise removal than regular videos because it fucks with games.

It's always possible in principle, you just have to be smart about it. Ideally, you want to make a change that will make the most efficient possible adjustments to the final coded file, which for current video codecs is probably going to mean modulating the frequency of video, rather than adding static noise.

>>56223895
Name it "Abstract Art"
They won't ever notice

>>56224661
what's the point?
use dropbox like a sane person

>>56225365
>what's the point?
the point is you don't give money to anyone.

>>56224446
Properly encrypted archives are indistinguishable from random noise. They aint detecting shit.

>>56223841
I was around for a while when something like this popped up, its not practical.
its entirely possible to store data in pictures, a white pixel is a 1 and a black is a 0 or whatever, and you can string many of those pixels in a picture to store data, and if you need more space you can store it in a video. The problem comes when you try to upload that video to say youtube, it uses a video compressor that will, when presented with a scene that doesnt have repetitive patterns ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Rp-uo6HmI ) it will just lower the quality of the video. Now because stringing 1's and 0's together in a video is gonna look like noise,, the very concept of a scene with no patterns, youtubes gonna compress it, which makes the decoding of bits nearly impossible. Now a good way around this is by making bits really big, so instead of a 1 pixel per bit, you have say 4 pixels per bit, the obvious problem is that now per every frame you only have 1/4 the data (or something like that, point is you have way less data per video frame) its also apparent that a 1 hour video with data thats mostly noise is most likely going to be a bit bigger than the data itsself, and if youtube compresses the video to much, some or all of that data is gonna be fucked, especially if you use compressed data( say a .zip/.7z file ), which is very sensitive to errors. if you really want to store data on googles servers that bad, just upload it to google drive. because unless you need a """"sekret"""" storage medium, you're just wasting your time. thats not to mention that with youtube, you have to deal with shit like making a gmail and verifying it to upload videos that are longer than 15 minutes, and so now your '''sekret''' service can be logged and traced back to you

>he doesn't back up his data to plain paper
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134427-a-paper-based-backup-solution-not-as-stupid-as-it-sounds

>>56227826
Youtube uses fixed bitrates, which gives you a hard upper bound on the amount of data you could squeeze into a video of 10 minute length.

But I think that with a properly designed encoding scheme, you could approach using at least half of that bitrate as actually useful data easily, and more if you try hard enough.