Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

C2PA Cameras Do Not Survive Contact with Reality

da.vidbuchanan.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 154 posts

Re: C2PA Cameras Do Not Survive Contact with Reality

#41

Post by qurren »

mistercow wrote: post #40

Aside from the fact that this was obviously never viable and the entire problem is clearly unsolvable if you sit down and really probe it for fifteen minutes, what I find most frustrating about this is that the false promise of preserving photos as reliable evidence is actively harmful. You will not build a perfect system, or even something near perfect. The best you're going to do is make it so that it's hard to cas…

Are we entering a world where if I took a picture with a film camera and scanned it, it would be rejected as not real?

This is ridiculous.

Re: C2PA Cameras Do Not Survive Contact with Reality

#42

Post by trentor »

It's compliance for advertising. Your client doesn't want AI in their project you show them the audit trail and if it turns out to be faked you point to the supplier who faked it. Our agency signed a insurance not only because of clients who don't want to use AI in their artwork but also because of the EU AI act. They c2pa to get their money back from a cheating supplier if they are not compliant with the AI act.

Re: C2PA Cameras Do Not Survive Contact with Reality

#44

Post by genxy »

12_throw_away wrote: post #21
uqers wrote: post #8

I'm very surprised Google put in so much effort to implement an approach that is basically the equivalent of client-side verification of passwords. Did no one designing it mention that it could be defeated by any rooted device?

Actually I think this approach is very forward looking! Attestation is on the cusp of becoming a very powerful technique. We just need to figure out how to build 100% bug-free and 100% secure hardware and software, and then it's gonna work great.

Wait a minute. I think you might have forgotten a /s, I can spot this kinda thing.

Re: C2PA Cameras Do Not Survive Contact with Reality

#45

Post by CapitalistCartr »

qurren wrote: post #41
mistercow wrote: post #40

Aside from the fact that this was obviously never viable and the entire problem is clearly unsolvable if you sit down and really probe it for fifteen minutes, what I find most frustrating about this is that the false promise of preserving photos as reliable evidence is actively harmful. You will not build a perfect system, or even something near perfect. The best you're going to do is make it so that it's hard to cas…

Are we entering a world where if I took a picture with a film camera and scanned it, it would be rejected as not real? This is ridiculous.

It's not a matter of "rejected as not real", it's "There's no way to know if this is real or not".

Re: C2PA Cameras Do Not Survive Contact with Reality

#46

Post by indutny »

mistercow wrote: post #40

Aside from the fact that this was obviously never viable and the entire problem is clearly unsolvable if you sit down and really probe it for fifteen minutes, what I find most frustrating about this is that the false promise of preserving photos as reliable evidence is actively harmful. You will not build a perfect system, or even something near perfect. The best you're going to do is make it so that it's hard to cas…

In my opinion, the benefits for end users are rather minimal since I doubt an average person would ever be checking C2PA provenance data, but there is a commercial incentive for Google and others to promote C2PA, since it makes preparing training material for Machine Learning significantly easier, and perhaps as a smaller benefit justifies hardware attestation that locks users down into proprietary OSes.

Re: C2PA Cameras Do Not Survive Contact with Reality

#47

Post by lelandfe »

qurren wrote: post #41
mistercow wrote: post #40

Aside from the fact that this was obviously never viable and the entire problem is clearly unsolvable if you sit down and really probe it for fifteen minutes, what I find most frustrating about this is that the false promise of preserving photos as reliable evidence is actively harmful. You will not build a perfect system, or even something near perfect. The best you're going to do is make it so that it's hard to cas…

Are we entering a world where if I took a picture with a film camera and scanned it, it would be rejected as not real? This is ridiculous.

The defendant submitted a remarkably high quality video of you saying you generated it with Nano Banana.

Re: C2PA Cameras Do Not Survive Contact with Reality

#48

Post by LiamPowell »

I always got the impression that C2PA is a way to say "this photo came from the BBC (for example) and they've only signed it because they've verified the supplied edit chain". It's always been obvious that one could point a camera at a screen, I don't think anyone involved with C2PA has claimed otherwise.

It seems like there's a big disconnect between what C2PA says it's for and what certain journalists think it's for.

Re: C2PA Cameras Do Not Survive Contact with Reality

#50

Post by fedpost »

squidsoup wrote: post #49

Isn't film photography verifiable with a physical negative? i.e. you could verify a digital reproduction of the analog photo by comparing the digital image with the negative. Tedious, but sound?

You can expose a negative with whatever the fuck you want. It doesn't have to be a real scene.
Post reply on HN