3 ms·
There are steps in solutions like this (I would imagine a first being all images are hashed / signed by a key stored on the camera itself, so the orignal raw im
by lifeisstillgood 4y ago
There are steps in solutions like this (I would imagine a first being all images are hashed / signed by a key stored on the camera itself, so the orignal raw image can be audited later - this is something that will help more jounralistically than artists but it's relevant)
But ultimately photography becomes a sport - yes it's possible to run faster / lift more if you take the drugs. But we ban that because of reasons, much like I suspect competitions will ban AI content and possibly so will newspapers.
(which is why the above signing of images might be a huge step forward)
- visarga 4y agoI somehow feel there are technical reasons why this won't work.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rendall 4y agoAuditing data could always be spoofed. There is no technology fix for this. Better just to stick with the social, and tell people that violating the rules will result in disqualification and a ban.
- PeterisP 4y agoHow do you tell that some key is stored solely on a particular camera? I mean, a camera manufacturer could issue a digitally signed certificate that this key should be only embedded in a particular camera, but it doesn't prove that a copy wasn't made beforehand or extracted from that camera, or that someone wasn't able to misuse the manufacturer's signing keys to sign a few extra keys to be sold to e.g. propaganda manufacturers.
- lifeisstillgood 4y agoAll of that is fair. The secure enclave on an iPhone is only so secure. But given that any idiot can fake a picture of Obama \ Trump / shaking hands with <insert here> it would be nice to have something that easily and automatically gets repudiated 99% of the time - we want to default trust not default distrust. Life is much much harder the other way round and design society to promote what makes society stronger is a good thing.