4 ms·
Useful for source authentication in news to combat fakes. I am sure if you don't want your identity associated with a picture there will be plenty methods to a
by nonrandomstring 3y ago
Useful for source authentication in news to combat fakes. I am sure
if you don't want your identity associated with a picture there will
be plenty methods to avoid this. Indeed some journalists will also
need anonymity - but perhaps signed metadata on the GPS
location/timestamp, so any camera for serious photo-journalist
reporting will have to have those features.
Perhaps less interestingly, single frame exposure will defeat the
accidental recording of sound into pictures recently reported to be a
side effect of rolling shutters.
- varispeed 3y agoI think we are going to see more of this. I doubt this is about "deep fakes", as in reality the press doesn't care about it as long as it generates clicks and revenue. It's more to do with surveillance and being able to more easily track someone trying to play investigative journalist, whistleblower etc. and show them their place. For instance, if someone takes a photo of a big corporation exec giving a brown envelope to a politician and then another journalist show them to interested parties as a courtesy before publication, they could find out who took the picture and get them killed. This is very dangerous and stupid what Sony is playing with.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoThe thing is, it's rather easy to remove this. Even advanced steganographic watermarks fall to current AI and DSP. Non-consensual/forced source ID is a fools errand. OTOH, it's very hard to firmly attribute source ID in a way that cannot be faked (hashed or reconstructed after the fact). In other words it's easy to disown, hard to own. Repudiation is a one way function. Since we're headed for a post-truth, post-trust digital world the desirable sides of this seem to greatly outweigh the apparent "dystopian downsides".