441–450 of 491 posts
Also does this mean I can't adjust colors or make any changes to my photos?
I could see this being neat in the context of a digital detox photo competition or something, but I don't see any real place for this in Art world
Similar to ad-clicks or product reviews, if this were to catch on, Roc cameras (and Roc camera farms) will be used to take photos of inauthentic photos.
Ultimately, the only useful authenticity test is human reputation.
If someone (or an organization) wants to be trusted as authentic, the best they can do is stake their identity on the authenticity of things they do and share, over and over.
Who's really going to check if I spoofed the camera sensor data, and why? Also does this mean I can't adjust colors or make any changes to my photos? I could see this being neat in the context of a digital detox photo competition or something, but I don't see any real place for this in Art world
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. Running around with a large format camera (Graflex) with an Instax back (lomograflok) and making photos and immediately giving results back to people changed a lot. Strangers were basically lining up to ask about the camera and have their photo taken. That was a really fun experience, and I noticed how much I missed that excitement - before camera phones took over such moments were much more common. Now I…
Like a extra-fancy Polaroid?
There's the C2PA standard which has picked up momentum recently to I guess help resolve some of the issues. https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2024-03-c2pa-verification-news... I believe various cameras support this, e.g. https://www.canon-europe.com/press-centre/press-releases/202... `C2PA Authenticity: Integrated support for the C2PA standard for photo authenticity verification – initially available exclusively for regi…
https://www.nikonusa.com/content/nikon-authenticity-service
https://authenticity.sony.net/camera/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/shopping/panasonic-is-th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe it is me who is biased Sure, and so am I. We're all biased toward what we are used to, especially if it's something we grew up with through childhood. While I think it'd be creepy for someone to sit outside, zooming in on strangers and taking photos of them, I don't think that sort of thing should be illegal. (Aside from when it might break other laws, like if it were to turn into harassment.) I do think it w…
> Again, publishing a photo is IMO another matter. With analog photography this might be a useful distinction but with digital it is easy to leak that photo even without explicit intention to do so. Even if the intention was to never share my photo, it is likely to be automatically uploaded to Google Cloud or similar services. It can be hacked, it will end up as training data for some LLM and so on. It is more practi…
Technologically augmenting these rights does not change them. A pen and paper to record observations is a technological augmentation to memory and recall. A newspaper is an augmentation to a gossip corner. A camera is just the same. A person should be able to record and retransmit any information they come across in public, regardless of technology, since ownership of an observation is fundamentally the observer’s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What is "publishing"? Is posting on FB also publishing?
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?
You take a photo of an AI generated photo. What's yr proof worth then?
Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem.
But, if the sony sensor also measures depth information, this attack vector will fall flat. Pun intended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excellent response, you made me laugh. I was getting enduly riled up over anonymous internet comments and was going to say something much more obnoxious, but not everyone gets Australian humour so I figured I’d tone it down. If I saw you take an unasked photo of our blind friend here, I’d let them know so they’d have an opportunity to approach you and ask you to deleted it, if they happen to feel motivated to do so,…
I’ve spent some time down under myself, and I would hope if you were to ever find me lacking, to the degree that you needed to take care of me, that you have the foresight to have that moment on camera, because such a photograph ought to go straight to the pool room .[0] [0] (For those who haven't seen The Castle (1997), you really owe it to the Australians in your life to make an appointment with yourself to do so a…
—-
I’m in to that! It’d be a photo of me falling flat on my face / generally making a fool of myself. Perfect pool room photo.
Have a lovely day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are people who can "take a picture of you" just by looking at you for a second. They have you memorized after that. I believe the usual approach is that in general, if you're in a public space, you accept pictures may be taken of you. But it depends on the context. If you're a bystander in your city while tourists are fotographing places of interest for example, and you make it into the picture, then that will…
People with photographic memory can't just upload their memories to the Internet. So that comparison is pretty much worthless.