Picblock fix

[YRD]

Hi all,

Maybe some of you have already heard a bit about the program. But for those who didn't, it's a parental program which - instead of blocking whole pages, including the normal ones. - blurs the pornographic images. Which is a good tool for some of us betas

Now the problem. There haven't been an update for quite some time, for 5 years. This, because the whole webpage is gone from the makers. Now this program has some real potential and I was thinking there must be someone with interests and some coding skills for this. I must admit I have very little coding skills, so I have no clue what the core of the problem can be..

But, the problem seems to be crashing on windows 10. Because it works like a charm for the first time of installing, but after restarting the computer it doesn't load.

Now I would assume there a more people interested in this, so please let me (us) know. I also would be more than willingly to make a nice donation for the one can breathe her with some more life again.

Hope to hear from you all.

YRD

[rob204]

Oh? I didn't knew such program exists. Recently I even looked for a way to do something similar. Actually I looked for nipple detection algorithms I could integrate into an image proxy or a user script, so I could hide them behind black bars or smileys or whatever. Or even put clothes on any unclad people.

Sadly my search ended after watching some youtube video of a guy who didn't make his superior algorithm open source apparently. edit: Oh.. but this looks promising.

But I don't see much a point in it anyways. Just stop browsing porn sites or deactivate images.

Not sure what the problem with picblock is. But I'm pretty reluctant to download that crashing piece of freeware exe.

[Sissy Elise]

Mixing Something like: https://github.com/trimkadriu/Nudity-Bl ... -Extension
with: https://github.com/43081j/pixelate.js

Would probably be a much easier and nicer solution.

[rob204]

Mixing Something like: https://github.com/trimkadriu/Nudity-Bl ... -Extension
with: https://github.com/43081j/pixelate.js

Ah, NudityJS.. Right. Maybe that's what I was trying to remember. Let's see if it works. But probably that nudity blocker alone is already perfect for YRD.


edit:
Ok, well it kinda works okay together. But most of the time tabs are crashing, images missing and I still couldn't get pixelate.js not to reveal the original image when hovering it. Not sure if it's really worth the effort. Of course flash ads aren't even inspected.

[Mopar]

Pixelate.js without any undo code.

Code: Select all

(function(e,t){var a=function(){var e={value:.02};var t=arguments[1]||{};var a=this,n=a.parentNode;if(typeof t!=="object"){t={value:parseInt(arguments[1])}}t=function(){var n={};for(var i in e){if(a.hasAttribute("data-"+i)){n[i]=a.getAttribute("data-"+i);continue}if(i in t){n[i]=t[i];continue}n[i]=e[i]}return n}();var i=a.style.display,r=a.width,l=a.height,o=false;var d=document.createElement("canvas");d.width=r;d.height=l;var f=d.getContext("2d");f.mozImageSmoothingEnabled=false;f.webkitImageSmoothingEnabled=false;f.imageSmoothingEnabled=false;var u=r*t.value,s=l*t.value;f.drawImage(a,0,0,u,s);f.drawImage(d,0,0,u,s,0,0,d.width,d.height);a.style.display="none";n.insertBefore(d,a);};e.HTMLImageElement.prototype.pixelate=a;if(typeof t==="function"){t.fn.extend({pixelate:function(){return this.each(function(){a.apply(this,arguments)})}});t(e).on("load",function(){t("img[data-pixelate]").pixelate()})}else{document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(e){var t=document.querySelectorAll("img[data-pixelate]");for(var a=0;a<t.length;a++){t[a].addEventListener("load",function(){this.pixelate()})}})}})(window,typeof jQuery==="undefined"?null:jQuery);

[rob204]

Pixelate.js without any undo code.

Oh nice. Works well. Actually there shouldn't be a problem with pixelate though. I mean the original version has all those parameters but somehow the extension didn't seem to use them correctly. Additionally there are so many other wtfs in the extension that I started to wonder why it even works sometimes.

I tried to fix several bugs in the extension and now it seems to actually work as expected. I suppose it's still not really useful. It takes some time to analyze the images. And it doesn't work on images from CSS styles, lazily loaded images and flash or video yet. And the images are either fully pixelated or not at all. Would be nicer if it only pixelated the naughty parts.

Spoiler: show

[Sissy Elise]

Nice work both of you!

I tested picblock before I went away on an old computer and the results were far worse than what your screen snap shows.
So it is already an improvement. picblock also lagged badly and had a lot of false positives and missed a lot more + pixel gradation was a lot course on it causing you not to be able to identify the pictures.

Would it be possible to share your extension rob so we can have a play around with it?

[rob204]

Would it be possible to share your extension rob so we can have a play around with it?

Oh well it's not my extension as you know. I changed some parts of it, some for the better, some for the worse. Actually it works *much* better in my tests now but you cannot deactivate it anymore.

Not sure how to share it. Let's see if this link works. http://www.file-upload.net/download-119 ... r.zip.html

[Sissy Elise]

Oh well it's not my extension as you know. I changed some parts of it, some for the better, some for the worse. Actually it works *much* better in my tests now but you cannot deactivate it anymore.

Not sure how to share it. Let's see if this link works. http://www.file-upload.net/download-119 ... r.zip.html

Awesome - Thank you Rob - I will test it out later :)

[rob204]

But I suggest not to browse any important websites with chrome while having that extension installed. It manipulates the http response headers to be able to read the image data. In general that's a pretty bad idea.

I included detection of most lazily loaded images. But videos and images from CSS styles (like background images) are still not treated at all.

On some websites it still doesn't work. For example on twitter they seem to really care about security, utilizing all the security related features of modern browser world. I guess we have to manipulate even more stuff there.

On those websites the initial hiding of untreated images still works though. I assumed it was desirable to only see images after making sure they contain no nudity.

[Sissy Elise]

Hmmm I have been playing around with it and I don't think it is ever going to be as good as we would like it. Reading up on nude.js it looks like they gave up on it a few years back also

I was thinking maybe a way round it, would be to use parental controls and block all adult sites and then only allow a few to work such as the ones using html5 player (such as milovana / motherless / tumblr ) and pixelate all images and video's, such as: http://rocha.la/fun-with-pixels-html5-video-canvas and block flash from working on them.

In an ideal world it would be good to have it pixelating all nude media on all websites but I don't think its possible.

[rob204]

Hmmm I have been playing around with it and I don't think it is ever going to be as good as we would like it. Reading up on nude.js it looks like they gave up on it a few years back also

I'm not sure why you think it can't be as good. Maybe because it's so slow. Or because of the many false negative results. Or because it doesn't support video yet.

Well, we could make it work faster on big images by first shrinking them down to a reasonable size. There's no need to let nudejs work on hd images. I've already tested it now and it seems to work well.

Regarding the wrong classifications I've looked for alternatives to nudejs and noticed they show you a percentage of the detected nudity while nudejs only responds with nude/no-nude. So I took a look inside how it decides on this and noticed some weird things in that last part of the algorithm. Anyways.. finally it decides that an image contains nudity if 1) it contains at least 15% skin pixels AND 2) contains between 3 and 60 skin regions AND 3) the biggest skin region contains at least 45% of all skin pixels.
Maybe we could tweak those parameters to make it work better for our purposes.

Working with video is a bit harder of course. Sure we could apply nudejs on an image-per-image basis on html5 video. But have you seen how slow it is to pixelate the video? What if we also include the nudity detection there? I think instead of using javascript to pixelate it we had to resort to css filters.
Flash video is even harder. I already created a client-side flash manipulator but somehow it's even more difficult to lever out the security policies there since flash is loaded as a plugin. Well, at least it's very difficult for flash apps. I haven't thought about flash video players yet.

I was thinking maybe a way round it, would be to use parental controls and block all adult sites and then only allow a few to work

Sure why not. Actually I wonder why you should be allowed to visit adult sites at all. Just block them. Or better yet only have a white list of web sites you're allowed to visit.

In an ideal world it would be good to have it pixelating all nude media on all websites but I don't think its possible.

Why stop there? I think you would need to actually compile it into the browser for that to work. Or an application that works outside of the browser, either between sissy and browser or browser and website. Between browser and website you could install a custom proxy. Between sissy and browser you could have something similar to a "remote desktop" session filtering anything that would be visible on screen. Preferably build into the operating system.

[Mopar]

I really like how the images are blurred out if that is something you added but large images are indeed slow.

Here is an extension you might want to look at.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... dpckpidpme

[YRD]

Thanks guys for all the comments.

Yes, it seems a lot of different companies/people have tried to make something similar it seems. But I guess it's just difficult to really make it work properly..

Webcleaner works quite good, but the (protectionlogo) is terrible ><
Would it be possible to use the pixelate tool instead of the standard logo?


Thanks again for everything

[rob204]

I really like how the images are blurred out if that is something you added but large images are indeed slow.

Yes, the original extension showed the untampered images for a while, then made them totally invisible and finally replaced them with the logo or made them visible again.

I thought that it was better to hide them right from the start and even better show a blurred version until the computations are done. The blurred version is just a CSS filter though, so you could still see the original version if you're quick with the web console. Once the computation is done the actual image src attribute gets replaced.

Working on a reduced resolution is really way faster.

Webcleaner works quite good, but the (protectionlogo) is terrible ><
Would it be possible to use the pixelate tool instead of the standard logo?

Sure why not. That extension is Apache v2 licensed so there's nothing to hold you back from modifying it to your needs as long as you abide to its conditions stuff. I'm not a lawyer though.

Technically it's a bit more difficult than with Nudity Blocker. Mostly it tries to block images just from looking at the url without even accessing the image data. But you need the image data to pixelate it.
Then if it doesn't find any suspicious text in the url it downloads a second version of the image because it cannot access the pixels from the original image because of security policies. But who knows if that second version is the same as the first one? The extension loads this version from a sandbox, afaik without access to your cookies etc. Nudity Blocker on the other hand takes all your thoroughly worked out policies, puts them in a document shredder and works with the original data.
Then if Web Cleaner finally finds more than x% of skin pixels it replaces the image src with that logo. At that line of code you could easily use a pixelated version of the image instead of the logo. The only problem is that the extension is quite insistent. It notices that the image src has changed and starts analyzing the pixelated version. It's quite funny to look at but probably not as intended.