4 ms·

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

falcolas 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
    You need to have the original raw. Who cares what some mongrel does to your photo in a basement?
  - dclowd9901 3y 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 3y ago
[deleted]
rickdeckard 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
This is trivially broken by taking a picture of a high enough resolution screen, or printout.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  That’s why it needs more than just time stamp. GPS would be important too.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    GPS spoofing is pretty cheap these days for a single device in a faraday cage.

falcolas 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
  You need to have the original raw. Who cares what some mongrel does to your photo in a basement?
- dclowd9901 3y 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 3y ago

[deleted]

rickdeckard 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago

This is trivially broken by taking a picture of a high enough resolution screen, or printout.

dclowd9901 3y ago
That’s why it needs more than just time stamp. GPS would be important too.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  GPS spoofing is pretty cheap these days for a single device in a faraday cage.