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

Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

security.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 359 posts

Re: Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

#221

Post by [deleted] »

rickdeckard wrote: post #182
Topfi wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't OIS increase the size of a sensor by roughly half and thus take some significant engineering and design cost to accommodate? At least it seems that way in the phones I've taken apart and looked at. Also, OIS is a major mechanical add on (a literal motor) and even 1500usd smartphones lack it on some of their sensors, mainly because while it can have an advantage on an ultrawide, that tends to be more limited.…

> Doesn't OIS increase the size of a sensor by roughly half No, you can apply smartphone OIS-tech on any sensor, stabilization is achieved via the lens-array, not the sensor. The size of the module slightly increases but that's not a hindering factor. Cost/Benefit of OIS on ultra-wide lenses is not there, so it's usually not applied. > Your logic would lead to OEMs making SOCs without things like TEE and other things…

[deleted]

Re: Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

#222

Post by mitxela »

throw0101c wrote: post #217
mitxela wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll still need an iPhone, the verification is linked to the specific iPhone, and the specific iPhone is linked to you.

> You'll still need an iPhone, the verification is linked to the specific iPhone, and the specific iPhone is linked to you. Unless you use a friend's iPhone, or an iPhone you 'rented' for 5 minutes for $20 from someone on Craigslist or Facebook Marketplace to take a picture on and then Airdrop to you.

Buying a new overpriced phone every time you want to take a picture is certainly a decision.

Re: Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

#223

Post by coldtea »

rickdeckard wrote: post #214
Topfi wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Those three sentences are not really compatible with each other?! Like, they are mutually exclusive and each appears to hold a different position. How is what I wrote (that you seem to not see universal benefit) in bad-faith/not what you wrote (honestly trying to understand what you mean) if you then add: > I don't see how and why this feature should become a default in all smartphones [...] So, do you see univ…

You fail to understand the difference between a feature having perceived "universal value" and that same feature being applied universally in all price-segments of a device. These are, and I cannot overemphasize this, two different things! You stated that you "struggle to see how cost could be a factor here" , so in good faith I was trying to give you an insight. There is universal value in OIS, as everyone takes pic…

>There is universal value in OIS, as everyone takes pictures while holding the device in his hands, yet OIS is not applied universally in all price-tiers of devices. The reason is COST.

The reason is digital stabilization is a good enough alternative to not bother, and the lens/sensor modules they use in bulk just didn't come with "analog" stabilization. And OIS is way less important than a future digitally verified photos feature could be (which could be mandated by corporations, banks, governments, insurance companies, for several uses when it becomes widespread), so they didn't bother to add it.

All kinds of cheapo smartphones still manage to have OIS, just because some Samsung models don't doesn't mean it's a universal argument for cheap phones in general.

>Nothing in this process changes with this Apple feature, because all it can do is confirm that the picture was taken by the camera as-is, but the attestation to the external metadata (WHO this is, WHAT this is, WHERE this is) still needs to be done by someone else. A party trusted enough to vouch for this.

Moot point, since the entity (e.g. gov) asking for an untampered photo (which this can do), can combine the photo with the metadata from the upload, like your gov mobile app account.

Re: Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

#224

Post by coldtea »

rickdeckard wrote: post #161
socalgal2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many smartphones have no camera? Zero? Bluetooth? Zero? But they could save cost by not having those. I think they are basically table stakes. If this type of thing becomes required for more and more things then no one will buy a phone that doesn't have them.

Yes, the whole insurance self-service is built on smartphones having a camera. But the assumption that smartphone cameras, including those used in 99USD smartphones, will become 100% cryptographic cameras in a few years is highly unlikely, considering that those cameras didn't even gain OIS in the last 13 years despite the feature being highly matured and widely available. Changing the topic to other features won't c…

>But the assumption that smartphone cameras, including those used in 99USD smartphones, will become 100% cryptographic cameras in a few years is highly unlikely, considering that those cameras didn't even gain OIS in the last 13 years despite the feature being highly matured and widely available.

Them becoming 70% cryptographic is enough. The people who need the feature, can get a compatible model. Nobody argued that smartphones sold for kids to game on for example should have it.

Re: Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

#225

Post by phkx »

tjpnz wrote: post #167
phkx wrote: post #63

I‘ve been wondering whether the contact tracking features introduced for Covid 19 could be used to verify that pictures of an event where taken by people who were actually around the scene. That way you‘d have some reassurance that a given picture was actually from the event. Combined with pictures from different angles from different people and some kind of verified photography should make alterations harder.

Too much potential for revealing the identities of others there.

The functionality included time-based rotation of the identifier that supposedly at least notably increased the effort to identify/track people over a longer time frame. I never dug into the details, but I figure that works better with short-term contacts and may break if you are in contact with many people over a longer time frame. Also, like contact tracking, it should be opt-in, so that you explicitly could act as ‚eyewitness‘.

Re: Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

#227

Post by kingleopold »

jeroenhd wrote: post #128
Gigachad wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s impossible to implement this feature in open source and out in the open. It relies on a locked down image pipeline and hidden key.

That's also why the approach is fundamentally flawed. The open-ish C2PA protocol has been "defeated" by tricking phones into signing arbitrary data already. The even-more-closed Apple version can be defeated the same way and relies on Apple to be the sole arbiter of truth.

any other similar approach is also dead on arrival, I can't believe so many apple engineers fails to see it? it's like siri 2012 all over again

Re: Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

#228

Post by Obscurity4340 »

rickdeckard wrote: post #185
intrasight wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> images that were confirmed to be "taken like this on an iPhone" No, because images will be confirmed to have been taken on "this iPhone". The New York Times will be able to publish an article and to attest that the photographs shown were taken by their journalists, and then your user agent will verify that provenience.

> No, because images will be confirmed to have been taken on "this iPhone". Actually the description of Apple makes explicit statements AGAINST that: Quote: Privacy preservation: an outside observer cannot determine whether any pair of reference images were taken by the same device

> an outside observer

An inside observer can tho, and if they know or have it, cant they be subpoenaed and forced to disclose the identity?

This sounds pretty bad for journalists/sources. Why is this needed now of all times?

Re: Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

#229

Post by tempay »

RobotToaster wrote: post #201
gambiting wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like a lot of things in the UK, the problem isn't the harshness of the law, it's the lack of prosecution. It doesn't matter what the punishment is when criminals know that the crime is extremely unlikely to be investigated or make it to trial.

> it's the lack of prosecution. The UK allows private prosecution, if it was a real problem the insurance companies would be using it, instead of attempting to make the state pay for it.

You still need to be able to realise something is fraudulent and pursuing prosecution has a significant cost to the insurer that is likely to be a net-loss financially. Not to mention the reputational risk of the public believing you prosecuted someone wrongly.

Re: Apple Reference Image: A New Approach for Verified Photography

#230

Post by phkx »

Gigachad wrote: post #100
phkx wrote: post #63

I‘ve been wondering whether the contact tracking features introduced for Covid 19 could be used to verify that pictures of an event where taken by people who were actually around the scene. That way you‘d have some reassurance that a given picture was actually from the event. Combined with pictures from different angles from different people and some kind of verified photography should make alterations harder.

I’m fairly sure that the contact tracing feature has been removed now. And it wouldn’t be needed anyway, the iPhone location services are far more useful. I imagine the geotag could be included with the verification. Location services is quite hard to trick. To the point people have gone to the lengths of putting iPhones inside a microwave for RF shielding and setting up fake phone tower signals inside to trick the p…

Indeed, that may simply be it. You would want to verify time and date. When coming up with the thought I was looking for ways to crowd verify real world events.
Post reply on HN