TY - GEN
T1 - Power
T2 - International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing, ITCC 2002
AU - Sion, Radu
AU - Atallah, Mikhail
AU - Prabhakar, Sunil
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2002 IEEE.
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - An important parameter in evaluating data hiding methods is hiding capacity (Cohen et al., 1999) i.e. the amount of data that a certain algorithm can "hide" until reaching allowable distortion limits. One fundamental difference between watermarking (Cox et al., 1997; 1999) and generic data hiding resides exactly in the main applicability and descriptions of the two domains. In the digital framework, watermarking algorithms that make use of information hiding techniques have been developed and hiding capacity was naturally used as a metric in evaluating their power to hide information. Whereas the maximal amount of information that a certain algorithm can "hide" (while keeping the data within allowable distortion bounds) is certainly related to the ability to assert ownership in court, it is not directly measuring its power of persuasion, in part also because it does not consider directly the existence and power of watermarking attacks. We show why, due to its particularities, watermarking requires a different metric, more closely related to its ultimate purpose, claiming ownership in a court of law. We define one suitable metric (watermarking power) and show how it relates to derivates of hiding capacity. We prove that there are cases where considering hiding capacity is sub-optimal as a metric in evaluating watermarking methods whereas the metric of watermarking power delivers good results.
AB - An important parameter in evaluating data hiding methods is hiding capacity (Cohen et al., 1999) i.e. the amount of data that a certain algorithm can "hide" until reaching allowable distortion limits. One fundamental difference between watermarking (Cox et al., 1997; 1999) and generic data hiding resides exactly in the main applicability and descriptions of the two domains. In the digital framework, watermarking algorithms that make use of information hiding techniques have been developed and hiding capacity was naturally used as a metric in evaluating their power to hide information. Whereas the maximal amount of information that a certain algorithm can "hide" (while keeping the data within allowable distortion bounds) is certainly related to the ability to assert ownership in court, it is not directly measuring its power of persuasion, in part also because it does not consider directly the existence and power of watermarking attacks. We show why, due to its particularities, watermarking requires a different metric, more closely related to its ultimate purpose, claiming ownership in a court of law. We define one suitable metric (watermarking power) and show how it relates to derivates of hiding capacity. We prove that there are cases where considering hiding capacity is sub-optimal as a metric in evaluating watermarking methods whereas the metric of watermarking power delivers good results.
KW - Computer science education
KW - Computer security
KW - Data encapsulation
KW - Distortion measurement
KW - Home computing
KW - Information security
KW - Power measurement
KW - Steganography
KW - Usability
KW - Watermarking
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/33750923026
U2 - 10.1109/ITCC.2002.1000367
DO - 10.1109/ITCC.2002.1000367
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:33750923026
T3 - Proceedings - International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing, ITCC 2002
SP - 95
EP - 99
BT - Proceedings - International Conference on Information Technology
PB - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
Y2 - 8 April 2002 through 10 April 2002
ER -