alt Hacker NewsI think that "impossible to detect" is not something realistic if camera manufacturers are willing to start adding encryption signatures to their cameras outputs and are willing to vouch for them.
I realize this would still allow fakes to be presented by governments in all likelihood, but not everyone.
Replies
Leica started doing this a few years ago in response to the first wave of AI images[0]. Other, bigger manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Sony as well I believe) have also joined, though with less fanfare. Adobe is in the loop.
As someone with a passing interest in infosec and cryptography, I'm sceptical of the long-term viability of this kind of product; it only takes one person successfully extracting a signing key to undermine the entire project.
[0] https://leica-camera.com/en-int/news/partnership-greater-trust-digital-photography-leica-and-content-authenticity-initiativeYou still ultimately have the analogue hole here - pull the camera apart, splice your own hardware somewhere between the sensor and the thing that adds the signatures (or in front of the sensor).
Pointing the camera at a screen could potentially evade that.
wouldn't that just encourage monopolistic behavior and lockdown of these devices?
they're already locked down as-is.
Why do we keep on seeing that elementary misconception? Cryptographic verification != reality of the underlying data fed to it! Plus vouching for hardware that is in consumer hands? There is the gaping analog hole of 'recording' arbitrary data streams. All that system would do is make it easier to deanonmyize speech.
Who posts raw output from cameras anywhere? This doesn't seem useful outside some niche use-cases (like security camera footage). At a minimum just about every recording is going to be re-compressed for streaming.