Right. The article author seems to have re-invented steganography.
The hard problem is finding a way to encode data in video in a way that will survive recompression, resizing, or other video processing. The watermarking people have struggled with this for years. There are various spread-spectrum like schemes with good noise immunity that can do this.
YouTube has an ongoing battle between the copyright-infringement identification system and versions of audio and video modified to evade it.
Can't they simply use the least significant bit from each color channel to carry data? I think a single bit flip would change colors by a factor of 1/128, indetectable for the eye. Of course, use compression, encryption and redundancy too.
The hard problem is finding a way to encode data in video in a way that will survive recompression, resizing, or other video processing. The watermarking people have struggled with this for years. There are various spread-spectrum like schemes with good noise immunity that can do this.
YouTube has an ongoing battle between the copyright-infringement identification system and versions of audio and video modified to evade it.