5 ms·

How?

mmoskal 4y ago
Digital signatures on photos, with each camera certificate signed by the manufacturer. Not sure why they don't do it at scale yet.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Given how much AI processing is done to images on-camera (well, on-phone more often) these days, I'm not sure this could provide valid "proof of genuineness". For an example of on-phone manipulation, search for the Samsung moon incident.
- soco 4y ago
  And then comes Google Photos and applies a filter, goodbye signature (in this case, the phone's). Or I have an old-fashioned film camera... I guess this idea would work only with DSLRs, which aren't that popular anymore nowadays thus we won't solve that much of the original problem.
  - rickdeckard 4y ago
    It wouldn't even work with DSLRs, as barely any image taken is used without tuning parameters or retouching. If a digital signature would stay valid after retouching, there's no value in having it in the first place. If the picture would be re-signed on editing, what's the purpose of that signature...?
    - lofaszvanitt 4y ago
      You need to have the original raw. Who cares what some mongrel does to your photo in a basement?
    - dclowd9901 4y ago
      Pictures are used in a million ways that would make them lose the digital signature. The point is having an original that is verifiable so if it’s ever called into question, there’s evidence of truth.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rickdeckard 4y ago
  Which solves what exactly? A digital signature would basically be an EXIF that doesn't survive editing. If every photo shot in the past decade would have a certificate added by the camera, still none of the photos you see today would be signed, as they were either modified after the shot or are anyway older than a decade...
  - lofaszvanitt 4y ago
    You, the creator, have the original (like a raw cr2) image, so you have proof of evidence that is was created by you, by that camera. Plus sensors have quirks that already uniquely identifies cameras...
- Retr0id 4y ago
  This is trivially broken by taking a picture of a high enough resolution screen, or printout.
  - dclowd9901 4y ago
    That’s why it needs more than just time stamp. GPS would be important too.
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      GPS spoofing is pretty cheap these days for a single device in a faraday cage.
michaelt 4y ago
First, develop cameras that timestamp and digitally sign all the photos they take. Second, use your time machine to go back to 1800 and ensure all historical photographs are taken with such a camera. Then when you see something that purports to be a historical photograph, you simply validate the signature and timestamp.

How?

Digital signatures on photos, with each camera certificate signed by the manufacturer. Not sure why they don't do it at scale yet.

falcolas 4y ago
Given how much AI processing is done to images on-camera (well, on-phone more often) these days, I'm not sure this could provide valid "proof of genuineness". For an example of on-phone manipulation, search for the Samsung moon incident.
soco 4y ago
And then comes Google Photos and applies a filter, goodbye signature (in this case, the phone's). Or I have an old-fashioned film camera... I guess this idea would work only with DSLRs, which aren't that popular anymore nowadays thus we won't solve that much of the original problem.
- rickdeckard 4y ago
  It wouldn't even work with DSLRs, as barely any image taken is used without tuning parameters or retouching. If a digital signature would stay valid after retouching, there's no value in having it in the first place. If the picture would be re-signed on editing, what's the purpose of that signature...?
  - lofaszvanitt 4y ago
    You need to have the original raw. Who cares what some mongrel does to your photo in a basement?
  - dclowd9901 4y ago
    Pictures are used in a million ways that would make them lose the digital signature. The point is having an original that is verifiable so if it’s ever called into question, there’s evidence of truth.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rickdeckard 4y ago
Which solves what exactly? A digital signature would basically be an EXIF that doesn't survive editing. If every photo shot in the past decade would have a certificate added by the camera, still none of the photos you see today would be signed, as they were either modified after the shot or are anyway older than a decade...
- lofaszvanitt 4y ago
  You, the creator, have the original (like a raw cr2) image, so you have proof of evidence that is was created by you, by that camera. Plus sensors have quirks that already uniquely identifies cameras...
Retr0id 4y ago
This is trivially broken by taking a picture of a high enough resolution screen, or printout.
- dclowd9901 4y ago
  That’s why it needs more than just time stamp. GPS would be important too.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    GPS spoofing is pretty cheap these days for a single device in a faraday cage.

michaelt 4y ago

First, develop cameras that timestamp and digitally sign all the photos they take. Second, use your time machine to go back to 1800 and ensure all historical photographs are taken with such a camera. Then when you see something that purports to be a historical photograph, you simply validate the signature and timestamp.