4 ms·

What I am talking about is a bit different: imagine if the CCD produced a non MxN color image. Maybe think of it as scrambled data that has just the right level

What I am talking about is a bit different: imagine if the CCD produced a non MxN color image. Maybe think of it as scrambled data that has just the right level of detail for the machine to do its thing but not something where you can get back the full color image via any means. I am not saying the actual CCD is different but it’s something akin to a filter between the HW and the rest of the system to prevent full color image access.

wizzwizz4 2y ago
> Maybe think of it as scrambled data that has just the right level of detail for the machine to do its thing but not something where you can get back the full color image via any means. Information theory says this is impossible. https://anishathalye.com/inverting-photodna/ https://anishathalye.com/inverting-photodna/
- textlapse 2y ago
  I could imagine an IR or LiDAR like image that is still useful to detect objects or humans but is otherwise indecipherable by a human… Really I think I am imagining homomorphic encryption style techniques.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
stavros 2y ago
The resulting image would be basically useless for navigation. If a human can't make stuff out in the image, a computer definitely won't.
- strken 2y ago
  Why would that be true? You can do facial recognition on very low resolution photographs that wouldn't be easily recognisable to a human: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0262885619300216 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02628...
  - gwbas1c 2y ago
    That can be achieved by manipulating the lens to blur the image. A blurry high resolution image is generally equivalent to a low resolution image.
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  I was thinking more of an equivalent of XOR-ing the image direct from the CCD then using a TPM to do the image processing (edge detection, or whatever). You could deobfuscate by inspecting an individual CCD, but all images passed around would be essentially white-noise?
  - stavros 2y ago
    You trust the company to do all this complicated obfuscation, but don't trust them to not spy on you?
    - textlapse 2y ago
      All of the HW components are commoditized and horizontally integrated anyways. It’s easy to verify and build components with strong guarantees that ensures that the integrator can’t workaround (and why would they?) I do worry that companies essentially use the webcam as their main profit margin (sell ads!) with a rubbish trash compactor added as a mere ‘free service’.
gwbas1c 2y ago
You can over emphasize a detail / feature of a design at the expense of other more important features. Honestly, it just makes more sense to follow good security practices. Protecting the Bluetooth interface is much more practical than what you propose. FWIW: Military jets encrypt transmission on the wire between chips and components. But, they have to worry about a lot more than casual Bluetooth snooping.
- textlapse 2y ago
  I am not worried about the attack vector mentioned in the article - but that’s definitely a concern and a nice buzzworthy headline. I am more worried about the robovac companies really being an ad supported spying company with robovac as a mere shipping vehicle.

wizzwizz4 2y ago

> Maybe think of it as scrambled data that has just the right level of detail for the machine to do its thing but not something where you can get back the full color image via any means. Information theory says this is impossible. https://anishathalye.com/inverting-photodna/ https://anishathalye.com/inverting-photodna/

textlapse 2y ago
I could imagine an IR or LiDAR like image that is still useful to detect objects or humans but is otherwise indecipherable by a human… Really I think I am imagining homomorphic encryption style techniques.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

stavros 2y ago

The resulting image would be basically useless for navigation. If a human can't make stuff out in the image, a computer definitely won't.

strken 2y ago
Why would that be true? You can do facial recognition on very low resolution photographs that wouldn't be easily recognisable to a human: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0262885619300216 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02628...
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  That can be achieved by manipulating the lens to blur the image. A blurry high resolution image is generally equivalent to a low resolution image.
pbhjpbhj 2y ago
I was thinking more of an equivalent of XOR-ing the image direct from the CCD then using a TPM to do the image processing (edge detection, or whatever). You could deobfuscate by inspecting an individual CCD, but all images passed around would be essentially white-noise?
- stavros 2y ago
  You trust the company to do all this complicated obfuscation, but don't trust them to not spy on you?
  - textlapse 2y ago
    All of the HW components are commoditized and horizontally integrated anyways. It’s easy to verify and build components with strong guarantees that ensures that the integrator can’t workaround (and why would they?) I do worry that companies essentially use the webcam as their main profit margin (sell ads!) with a rubbish trash compactor added as a mere ‘free service’.

gwbas1c 2y ago

You can over emphasize a detail / feature of a design at the expense of other more important features. Honestly, it just makes more sense to follow good security practices. Protecting the Bluetooth interface is much more practical than what you propose. FWIW: Military jets encrypt transmission on the wire between chips and components. But, they have to worry about a lot more than casual Bluetooth snooping.

textlapse 2y ago
I am not worried about the attack vector mentioned in the article - but that’s definitely a concern and a nice buzzworthy headline. I am more worried about the robovac companies really being an ad supported spying company with robovac as a mere shipping vehicle.