Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately Snopes miscaptions many things themselves. Where the fact checkers of the "fact checkers".
Got some examples?
None that I could find. I didn't know snopes was in the business of captioning at all.
Signs that can reveal a fake photo (2017)
51–55 of 55 posts
Re: Signs that can reveal a fake photo (2017)
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately Snopes miscaptions many things themselves. Where the fact checkers of the "fact checkers".
Got some examples?
No need to fact check, just declare vague criticism for snopes every chance you get, pretend like it's self evident, then disappear because evidence is far left propaganda.
Re: Signs that can reveal a fake photo (2017)
#53Is this a solvable problem by requiring camera manufacturers cryptographically sign photos and videos created on those devices? If that’s in place then it seems like it could be the basis for chain of custody of journalistic images backed by a blockchain. This seems like the only viable solution to me since any AI powered solution would just be a cat and mouse game.
This might lead into a direction we don't want to go. E.g. camera manufacturers can add DRM so you can't copy photos and movies, fingerprinting for CSAM, etc. Just give me the raw image sensor.
I can totally see someone trying to set this up, then instead of any of the benefits actually working as advertised, photography costs $80 in etherium per photo.
Re: Signs that can reveal a fake photo (2017)
#54Is this a solvable problem by requiring camera manufacturers cryptographically sign photos and videos created on those devices? If that’s in place then it seems like it could be the basis for chain of custody of journalistic images backed by a blockchain. This seems like the only viable solution to me since any AI powered solution would just be a cat and mouse game.
Assuming that media and consumers will want to consider photos/videos of random everyday people, it would require that:
1. All manufacturers, including manufacturers of shoddy but cheap mass-market devices (ones that a not-wealthy person would have on them to document interesting events) support that cryptographic signing in all their devices;
2. None of the signing keys/secrets can be ever extracted from any such devices;
3. None of these manufacturers or their employees ever generate a valid key (or a million valid keys) that would have been put in a camera of the same model that respected journalists use, but are just available to the government where the factory resides, or just for sale on some internet forum to sign whatever misinformation a resourceful agent wants to publish.
Signing pictures can mostly work with respect to a limited set of secure, trusted hardware manufactured and delivered with a trusted chain of supply, where a single organization is in charge of the keys used and the set of keys is small enough to control properly. E.g. Reuters might use it to certify photos taken by Reuters people using specific Reuters-controlled camera hardware (and they can do that just by ordinary signing of what they publish). But there's no motivation for most people in the world to accept that overhead for the devices they use for photography and video, and there's no single authority to control the keys that everybody else would trust due to international relations.
Re: Signs that can reveal a fake photo (2017)
#55Camera's often have non-linear radial image distortions. For example, OpenCV's camera calibration process computes these radial distortions along the way [1]. They may not be very significant, but they exist.
[1] https://docs.opencv.org/master/dc/dbb/tutorial_py_calibratio...
Aligning points on a photo outside of more-or-less linear center region will certainly result in crossing lines. Which we see in the alignment attempt there in the article - the points we align are close to center and close to edge (max distortion).
There is no mention of distortions in the entire article.
But some other points are interesting to think about.