81–90 of 359 posts
Am wondering why no one is talking about traceability of Photos. Ex: CSAM which Apple was fighting for a long time. I thought this feature was the answer to provide proof of who shot the picture.
Seems kind of concerning that using this at all means you send your image to Apple’s PCC machines.
Presumably you would only do this for images you plan on sharing to social media anyways, to prove that it's not AI generated. PCC is quite good, about as close to private remote compute we can get without doing HME.
Now the camera module is supposed to generate a key pair internationally and send the public key over the bus. This looks like it is interceptable at repair time and a man in the middle can insert a different public key that they generated externally. Is there a way to stop this?
Apple doesn't address the modified photo replay situation, where you take a picture of an already edited image. Photoshop / AI-gen an image -> display on a high-resolution monitor -> photograph the monitor with iPhone 18 Pro -> valid Apple Reference image. To get valid reference photos, you can go to the actual physical location, put the iPhone/monitor in a cardboard box to block external light, then photograph the m…
While I'm on board with you about the inabsolute security of this (relative to what's typically expected of cryptographic systems), the fact that their 'verified' state requires a live certification and can be revoked means that the sensor responsible for obviously faked images will see those images and that device no longer certified.
It all relies a lot on trust in Apple, and integration with Apple, and relatively unmotivated attackers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also doesn't prevent you from staging an image or anything that's existed since photography was invented. But that's not the problem they're trying to solve. > Today, powerful, widely available AI tools allow users to easily generate or alter photorealistic images to a degree that was difficult to imagine just a few years ago. Photoshop has existed for decades and so has fake images. This is a low friction way to…
> "But that's not the problem they're trying to solve." It is the problem that they say they're trying to solve, though. They specifically say "where the essential role of a photograph is to prove that something actually happened". It fails the reasonable person test to say that the "something" in that phrase refers to the act of taking the photo itself. Likewise in "distinguish between photographs that depict real e…
After all, if money is no object, you could just bribe every single apple employee involved in the project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's trivial to block the projector and hide the dot pattern. No dot pattern = iPhone thinks the object is far away, which is what happens in landscape photos. I've never looked at the LiDAR hardware, but where is the emitter in relation to the receiver. Why would the LiDAR not reflect off of whatever you're blocking it with and return a very short flight meaning it was very close?
Paint the stopper vantablack then.
I skimmed the whole article and I didn’t see a single image so I’m confused. Is there some watermark of some kind or where is this metadata integrated? Because if it’s just metadata then I need to parse each photo I come across manually, and if it’s a watermark it can be faked because I won’t manually validate every single image I come across to prove the watermark isn’t fake.
I have my doubts about this scheme but this is not one of them. If the point is that someone in principle could verify, that is enough for it to be useful, even if not everyone does.
Am wondering why no one is talking about traceability of Photos. Ex: CSAM which Apple was fighting for a long time. I thought this feature was the answer to provide proof of who shot the picture.