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

Roc Camera

roc.camera

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#381

Post by wvlia5 »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #362
wvlia5 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about photographers. Imagine the president wants to deliver a video message. Was it authentic or AI generated? If it was filmed with this camera, the population can verify.

Yes. I am surprised by off the rails this conversation went. It's not about art. It's about verifiable evidence in these crazy times.

Yeah, 1st he misunderstands the product and then he believes he is qualified to valuate it negatively (due to him being a great photographer ): "this misses the mark on every front I can think of"

Re: Roc Camera

#382

Post by card_zero »

Gigachad wrote: post #88
modeless wrote: post #31

Seems to me that a camera like this is necessarily, at least in part, a closed system that blocks you from controlling the software or hardware on the device you supposedly own. It's hard for me to think this is a good direction. And as others have pointed out, it can't prevent attacks through the analog hole, e.g. photographing a display. It's not feasible or desirable for our hardware devices to verify the informat…

The analog hole can be mitigated by using more sensors. Store a depth map, a time, gps location, and maybe more. If you’ve got a photo of a public figure, but it doesn’t match the records of where they were at that time, it’s now suspicious.

Yes, that might make these fake-proof cameras popular, to the point where people start putting in the necessary effort to defeat them by monkeying around with the time server and the depth sensor and the gps signal. Then you get a really well-supported fake image that's very effective because it's authenticated.

Re: Roc Camera

#383

Post by wiether »

peteforde wrote: post #62

I used to be really (really really) into photography. I respect anyone working hard on a physical product, but this misses the mark on every front I can think of. The real issue that photographers grapple with, emotionally and financially, is that pictures have become so thoroughly commodified that nobody assigns them cultural value anymore. They are the thumbnail you see before the short video clip starts playing. N…

I read your comment this morning and it resonated with me.

A few hours later, YouTube suggested me this video: Psychology of People Who Don't Post their Photos on Social Media

Not some big revelations, but an interesting perspective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGx_cmEH8Lw

Re: Roc Camera

#384

Post by [deleted] »

rendaw wrote: post #95
zitterbewegung wrote: post #3

I’m not seeing what this is product is trying to solve? A zero knowledge proof to say it isn’t AI ? I think you could do this with a disposable camera or Polaroids and a photo scanner that makes the zero knowledge proofs .

A different thread mentions "what if you take a photo of an AI photo with the Roc camera?" - I still think that would be hard due to perspective, lighting, various other artifacts. Scanning an image would be much easier to dupe though - scanners are basically controlled perspective/lighting environments so scanning an actual polaroid vs an ai generated polaroid printed on photo paper would be pretty indistinguishable…

[deleted]

Re: Roc Camera

#385

Post by vzaliva »

This is the right direction - the only way to go about fake images and video is digital signatures. Phone camera should be able to do this as well. Then we can have signatures of software used for processing them (on top) cerityfing what changes have been done: e.g. contract correction filter applied, signed by Adobe Photoshop.

Re: Roc Camera

#386

Post by doctorpangloss »

peteforde wrote: post #62

I used to be really (really really) into photography. I respect anyone working hard on a physical product, but this misses the mark on every front I can think of. The real issue that photographers grapple with, emotionally and financially, is that pictures have become so thoroughly commodified that nobody assigns them cultural value anymore. They are the thumbnail you see before the short video clip starts playing. N…

On the other hand, if taking a picture on a Canon dSLR instantly uploaded it to Apple Photos the same way your iPhone does, when you’re outside, that would be a really popular product.

Re: Roc Camera

#387

Post by cush »

peteforde wrote: post #62

I used to be really (really really) into photography. I respect anyone working hard on a physical product, but this misses the mark on every front I can think of. The real issue that photographers grapple with, emotionally and financially, is that pictures have become so thoroughly commodified that nobody assigns them cultural value anymore. They are the thumbnail you see before the short video clip starts playing. N…

I think this kind of tech is designed for journalists and professionals, not enthusiasts and social media folk

Re: Roc Camera

#388

Post by doctorpangloss »

brokensegue wrote: post #255
donaldihunter wrote: post #208

I don't think ZK proofs help to establish trust in a photo's authenticity at all. C2PA is a well thought out solution to this problem. https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.2/spec... > The C2PA information comprises a series of statements that cover areas such as asset creation, edit actions, capture device details, bindings to content and many other subjects. These statements, called assertions, make…

I don't get how this is the only comment that doubts how their proofs work. There is zero detail or explanation of what they are proving

This is true, there is no detail.

The idea with zero knowledge proofs is that typically, photography metadata is stripped when it’s posted on Facebook. The proof would be a piece of metadata that COULD be safe to share in the SPECIFICS of what it proves. For example there is a circuit that can show that the photo was taken in the United States without leaking the specific location the photo was taken.

Presumably the authenticity scheme here is supposed to be, it answers it was taken on a real camera in a real place, without leaking any of the metadata. They are vague because probably that circuit (proving program and scheme) hasn’t been designed yet.

I also don’t know if it is possible to make useful assertions at all in such a scheme, since authenticity is a collection of facts (for example) and ZK is usually used to specifically make association of related facts harder.

Re: Roc Camera

#389

Post by cush »

modeless wrote: post #31

Seems to me that a camera like this is necessarily, at least in part, a closed system that blocks you from controlling the software or hardware on the device you supposedly own. It's hard for me to think this is a good direction. And as others have pointed out, it can't prevent attacks through the analog hole, e.g. photographing a display. It's not feasible or desirable for our hardware devices to verify the informat…

> A real solution to the problem of attribution in the age of AI must be based on reputation

This is actually one of the theoretical predictions from Eliezer Yudkowsky, who says that as information becomes less and less verifiable, we're going to need to re-enter a pre-information-era - where people will have to know and trust the sources of important information they encounter, in some cases needing to hear it first hand or in person.

Re: Roc Camera

#390

Post by perdomon »

This is a cool idea, but why is it $400? This feels more like an open-source passion project than a legitimate business venture.
Post reply on HN