3 ms·

That threat model has existed since the birth of photoshop et al.

by _kb 3y ago

autoexec 3y ago
There's a huge difference between someone intentionally altering an image according to their wishes and someone not even aware of changes that have been done. Before, forensic experts could decide if an image had been altered in photoshop, but I guess the only sane conclusion now is that anything taken with an iphone is fake and untrustworthy.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  As opposed to Samsungs which will take any vaguely circular bright white object and turn it into the moon? https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_sp...
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Yeah, that's trash too. At this point I think it's fair to say you just can't trust a picture taken from a cell phone.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    Yes, except it is called "Moon Mode" isn't it? The iPhone default mode isn't called "unReality Mode", so they aren't saying they are faking it. I don't know if Samsung state it is faked, but Apple definitely does not.
flashback2199 3y ago
Scenario: It's a decade from today and phones are not just stitching together multiple photos but also using generative AI. Apple and all of the other phone makers insist the implementation is safe. The suspect appears in the photo doing something they never actually did. In the chaos of the crime, the phone was left at the crime scene where it was found by law enforcement, no chance the photo could have been photoshopped. The photo is shown as evidence in court. Without the photo, there is not enough evidence to convict. The entire case now hinges on the content of the photo. The suspect insists they never did what is shown in the photo, but it doesn't matter. The suspect is convicted, put on death row, and executed by the state. Thankfully, there is a silver lining: everyone's photos are a couple percent prettier, which helped bring more value to shareholders.
- _kb 3y ago
  There was a thread here a little while back [0] on cryptographic proofs for photojournalism. Ultimately, that style of attestation seems the end game. Journalists, security cameras, emergency service / military body cams and other safety systems provide a trust mechanism that enables provable authenticity from the point of capture (and some form of web of trust to weight or revoke that trust for different audiences). Anything else is assumed to be at least partial hallucination. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37398317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37398317
  - thfuran 3y ago
    That doesn't really help when the edits are happening inside the camera as part of the acquisition process rather than in later manipulation.
    - _kb 3y ago
      The source (or photo mode used by it) is part of that trust.

That threat model has existed since the birth of photoshop et al.

by _kb 3y ago

That threat model has existed since the birth of photoshop et al.

There's a huge difference between someone intentionally altering an image according to their wishes and someone not even aware of changes that have been done. Before, forensic experts could decide if an image had been altered in photoshop, but I guess the only sane conclusion now is that anything taken with an iphone is fake and untrustworthy.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
As opposed to Samsungs which will take any vaguely circular bright white object and turn it into the moon? https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_sp...
- autoexec 3y ago
  Yeah, that's trash too. At this point I think it's fair to say you just can't trust a picture taken from a cell phone.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  Yes, except it is called "Moon Mode" isn't it? The iPhone default mode isn't called "unReality Mode", so they aren't saying they are faking it. I don't know if Samsung state it is faked, but Apple definitely does not.

flashback2199 3y ago

Scenario: It's a decade from today and phones are not just stitching together multiple photos but also using generative AI. Apple and all of the other phone makers insist the implementation is safe. The suspect appears in the photo doing something they never actually did. In the chaos of the crime, the phone was left at the crime scene where it was found by law enforcement, no chance the photo could have been photoshopped. The photo is shown as evidence in court. Without the photo, there is not enough evidence to convict. The entire case now hinges on the content of the photo. The suspect insists they never did what is shown in the photo, but it doesn't matter. The suspect is convicted, put on death row, and executed by the state. Thankfully, there is a silver lining: everyone's photos are a couple percent prettier, which helped bring more value to shareholders.

_kb 3y ago
There was a thread here a little while back [0] on cryptographic proofs for photojournalism. Ultimately, that style of attestation seems the end game. Journalists, security cameras, emergency service / military body cams and other safety systems provide a trust mechanism that enables provable authenticity from the point of capture (and some form of web of trust to weight or revoke that trust for different audiences). Anything else is assumed to be at least partial hallucination. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37398317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37398317
- thfuran 3y ago
  That doesn't really help when the edits are happening inside the camera as part of the acquisition process rather than in later manipulation.
  - _kb 3y ago
    The source (or photo mode used by it) is part of that trust.