431–440 of 491 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't work at all as open source since you could just modify the source to sign your AI generated pictures.
Okay. What prevents you from printing out a AI generated picture and taking a photo of that with the camera?
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.
It's not enough that the photograph is signed and has metadata. Someone has to interpret that metadata to decide authentic versus not. One can have an "authentic" photo of a rear projection screen. It wouldn't be appropriate to have an "authentic" checkmark next to this photo if it claims to not be a photo of a rear projection screen. The context matters to authenticity.
Secondly, the existence of such "authentic" photos will be used to call all non-authenticated photos into doubt.
So it doesn't even really solve any problem, but creates new problems.
I also believe that whatever they're aiming at with verifiably real photos will either be commodified or end up not being valued very highly.
It's not quite the Rabbit R1 (at least the presentation here seems more honest) but I don't see it generating more than niche-of-niche interest.
Also, and maybe more to the previous point about commodification (or within-reach tech), this is the kind of project I can imagine hardware hacker/AI and crypto enthusiast doing on their own ( and I guess selling to friends and neighbors for $400 ... )
Apple could really make an interesting product here where they combine the LIDAR data with the camera data, cryptographically sign it, and attest to it as unmodified straight from the camera. Can it still be faked? Yes, but it's much harder to do.
I am actually willing to support DIY camera efforts, but if you're semi-serious about taking pictures, this just wouldn't work. First, Raspberry Pi (I'm guessing this is a CM4/CM5) is a disaster for a camera board. Nobody wants a 20s boot every time you want to take a picture, cameras need to be near instantaneous. And you can't keep it on either, because the RPi can't really sleep. There are boards that can actually…
> (I'm guessing this is a CM4/CM5) is a disaster for a camera board. Nobody wants a 20s boot every time you want to take a picture, cameras need to be near instantaneous.
You can boot an RPI in a couple hundred milliseconds.
Identity verification for financial services, social platforms, and gig economy (KYC/AML compliance) Professional tools for insurance, real estate, law enforcement, and healthcare documentation Enterprise authentication-as-a-service model
Obviously, this has the vulnerability that you can take a picture of a computer monitor with it, showing whatever you want to. Apple could really make an interesting product here where they combine the LIDAR data with the camera data, cryptographically sign it, and attest to it as unmodified straight from the camera. Can it still be faked? Yes, but it's much harder to do.
Is this a reverse analog loophole? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the combination of "pictures of strangers" and "our right to take pictures" rather concerning. I have a different perspective, as I am blind. But I was always uncomfortable with having a picture taken of me by basically a stranger. And that feeling didn't just come with social media. It always was there. I disagree that you have a "right" to take pictures of strangers. IMO, you shouldn't have that right. It is…
While I agree with you that publishing a picture of a person without their consent ought to be illegal, I as an individual with very unreliable memory and one who’s always doubting my perception of reality, I heavily rely on modern technology and strongly believe that personal recording of any kind is my right, it being simple augmentation of my senses that allows me to live happier and more fulfilled life.
Am I just a crazy cynic or are ZK proofs here just a buzzword. Like, how is this any different than having each camera equipped with a vendor controlled key and then having it sign every photo? If you can spoof the sensor enough to reuse the key, couldn't you spoof the sensor enough to fool a verifier into believing your false proof?
The technique you describe has seen some use by some major vendors for 5 to 10 years right?