4 ms·

Maybe my earlier reply misunderstood. >nobody's going to request the huge RAW files for every photo I don't see this as a big issue as there are several easy

Maybe my earlier reply misunderstood. >nobody's going to request the huge RAW files for every photo I don't see this as a big issue as there are several easy ways around it -- the simplest being that the camera could compute and store a second digital signature of a smaller, JPEG-compressed version at photo time. Another possibility is third-party businesses popping up that you (or even high-quality news agencies themselves) pay to do the human verification for you.

solardev 3y ago
Usually there's not just one jpeg of a photo, but several. The camera might do one at a very high quality level, but that's going to be different than a downsampled one served over the web, or the mobile resolution one, or the color corrected one, etc. Regarding your other comment, sure, such a manual system might be possible, but that relies on either Reuters publishing all of their unedited raw photos (which they probably won't) or a third party photo escrow service with all the rights to the Reuters originals. Neither seems likely. I don't think this is an easy a problem as you might imagine? Perceptual hashing is a thing but there's no guarantee of forensic accuracy there. Reuters has a history of doctoring its photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters (photo controversy section)
- vr46 3y ago
  That last comment is a tad disingenuous - a photographer cloned extra smoke from attacks in a fairly obvious way that was quickly picked up, and another was a crop, fairly standard practice. Hardly a “history” of “doctoring” pictures.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I disagree. Those were substantial edits that exaggerated and biased the reporting. And those are just the ones we caught. It's not OK when reporters or papers do things like that.
- Cyphase 3y ago
  Direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#Photograph_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#Photograph_controversi...
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  Perceptual hashing isn't relevant here in any way that I can see. That step just doesn't need to be automated in any way. You have the final image (your browser downloaded it to display the page). Their new tech allows you to acquire something that you can be cryptographically certain is the original image. You can then look at the two images, and judge for yourself whether they look similar enough. Where does perceptual hashing come into it? ETA: >Regarding your other comment, sure, such a manual system might be possible, but that relies on either Reuters publishing all of their unedited raw photos (which they probably won't) or a third party photo escrow service with all the rights to the Reuters originals. Neither seems likely. No it doesn't -- they just need to provide those photos on demand. (If they don't, then their system is a hoax -- like giving someone a key that doesn't open any lock.) See my other comments in this thread. >Reuters has a history of doctoring its photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters (photo controversy section) Didn't read the link but based on another's reply comment, the added smoke is exactly the type of fraud that this new system will detect the first time anyone bothers to check that photo.

solardev 3y ago

Usually there's not just one jpeg of a photo, but several. The camera might do one at a very high quality level, but that's going to be different than a downsampled one served over the web, or the mobile resolution one, or the color corrected one, etc. Regarding your other comment, sure, such a manual system might be possible, but that relies on either Reuters publishing all of their unedited raw photos (which they probably won't) or a third party photo escrow service with all the rights to the Reuters originals. Neither seems likely. I don't think this is an easy a problem as you might imagine? Perceptual hashing is a thing but there's no guarantee of forensic accuracy there. Reuters has a history of doctoring its photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters (photo controversy section)

vr46 3y ago
That last comment is a tad disingenuous - a photographer cloned extra smoke from attacks in a fairly obvious way that was quickly picked up, and another was a crop, fairly standard practice. Hardly a “history” of “doctoring” pictures.
- solardev 3y ago
  I disagree. Those were substantial edits that exaggerated and biased the reporting. And those are just the ones we caught. It's not OK when reporters or papers do things like that.
Cyphase 3y ago
Direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#Photograph_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#Photograph_controversi...
akoboldfrying 3y ago
Perceptual hashing isn't relevant here in any way that I can see. That step just doesn't need to be automated in any way. You have the final image (your browser downloaded it to display the page). Their new tech allows you to acquire something that you can be cryptographically certain is the original image. You can then look at the two images, and judge for yourself whether they look similar enough. Where does perceptual hashing come into it? ETA: >Regarding your other comment, sure, such a manual system might be possible, but that relies on either Reuters publishing all of their unedited raw photos (which they probably won't) or a third party photo escrow service with all the rights to the Reuters originals. Neither seems likely. No it doesn't -- they just need to provide those photos on demand. (If they don't, then their system is a hoax -- like giving someone a key that doesn't open any lock.) See my other comments in this thread. >Reuters has a history of doctoring its photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters (photo controversy section) Didn't read the link but based on another's reply comment, the added smoke is exactly the type of fraud that this new system will detect the first time anyone bothers to check that photo.