4 ms·

> This technology is particularly applicable for passports and ID verification What if you take a picture of a fake passport?

karamanolev 4y ago
The goal is to prove that you took an image of something that existed in the state it was photographed in. If you take a picture of a fake passport, you are "proving" this passport existed and looked like it did on the picture. So ... mission accomplished? If they do it competently (or if it can be done) is a separate matter.
- rafale 4y ago
  Unless you take a picture of a picture.
  - karamanolev 4y ago
    Then you're proving the picture you just photographed existed and looked like it did. Where are you going with this? The utility of knowing a photograph was captured as-is should be know, as should be the ways to physically manipulate things so you capture what you want. IMO the question here should be if 1) this is the best solution for those use cases and 2) if this is implemented in a technically competent way.
    - rafale 4y ago
      I meant the end viewer will not notice it was a picture of a picture of a mountain but will rather think it's a picture of a mountain. Perhaps thinking it's an original work. Under perfect conditions, it's very hard to tell the difference
Aaargh20318 4y ago
I think the use case would be to take a photograph of a person to be used on a passport, not to take a photograph of a passport. Optical validation of a passport from a photograph is impossible, and unnecessary. If you need to remotely validate a passport there are already secure ways of doing that using the NFC chip embedded in most passports.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- remram 4y ago
  A signed picture of a person attests (at best) that the person is a person (not AI generated or photoshopped). It does nothing towards proving they are the right person for their passport.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    You are right, but does it need to secure absolutely every single aspect of the situation ? If an official agent takes a picture with it at an office and saves it to that person’s file, having a stamp saying it comes from the right camera and wasn’t altered post capture is good enough in 99.9% of the situations. Proving that person is actually who they say they are can be dealt with in other means.
    - remram 4y ago
      > Proving that person is actually who they say they are can be dealt with in other means. I can't imagine a situation where you have a means of doing that and you can trust the official agent to perform it, but you can't trust the official agent to sign the image so you need the camera to do it.
q-big 4y ago
> > This technology is particularly applicable for passports and ID verification > What if you take a picture of a fake passport? This technology blocks 50 % of the possibilities of counterfeiting (before or after taking the picture); this is an infinite amount better than the 0 % that other camera vendors deliver. ;-)

karamanolev 4y ago

The goal is to prove that you took an image of something that existed in the state it was photographed in. If you take a picture of a fake passport, you are "proving" this passport existed and looked like it did on the picture. So ... mission accomplished? If they do it competently (or if it can be done) is a separate matter.

rafale 4y ago
Unless you take a picture of a picture.
- karamanolev 4y ago
  Then you're proving the picture you just photographed existed and looked like it did. Where are you going with this? The utility of knowing a photograph was captured as-is should be know, as should be the ways to physically manipulate things so you capture what you want. IMO the question here should be if 1) this is the best solution for those use cases and 2) if this is implemented in a technically competent way.
  - rafale 4y ago
    I meant the end viewer will not notice it was a picture of a picture of a mountain but will rather think it's a picture of a mountain. Perhaps thinking it's an original work. Under perfect conditions, it's very hard to tell the difference

Aaargh20318 4y ago

I think the use case would be to take a photograph of a person to be used on a passport, not to take a photograph of a passport. Optical validation of a passport from a photograph is impossible, and unnecessary. If you need to remotely validate a passport there are already secure ways of doing that using the NFC chip embedded in most passports.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
remram 4y ago
A signed picture of a person attests (at best) that the person is a person (not AI generated or photoshopped). It does nothing towards proving they are the right person for their passport.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  You are right, but does it need to secure absolutely every single aspect of the situation ? If an official agent takes a picture with it at an office and saves it to that person’s file, having a stamp saying it comes from the right camera and wasn’t altered post capture is good enough in 99.9% of the situations. Proving that person is actually who they say they are can be dealt with in other means.
  - remram 4y ago
    > Proving that person is actually who they say they are can be dealt with in other means. I can't imagine a situation where you have a means of doing that and you can trust the official agent to perform it, but you can't trust the official agent to sign the image so you need the camera to do it.

q-big 4y ago

> > This technology is particularly applicable for passports and ID verification > What if you take a picture of a fake passport? This technology blocks 50 % of the possibilities of counterfeiting (before or after taking the picture); this is an infinite amount better than the 0 % that other camera vendors deliver. ;-)