Comment on Google Search To Show If An Image Is AI Generated, Edited Or Taken With Camera.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 day agoA. It’s not even the weakest of weak evidence of whether a photo is legitimate. It tells you literally zero.
B. Even if it was concrete proof, that would still be a truly disgusting reason to think you were entitled to that information.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You can use metadata to prove an image is real, you can’t prove something is real without it, so it’s the o to current option. It tell you a lot, you just don’t want people to k ow it apparently, but that doesn’t change it can be used to legitimatize an image.
What’s disgusting about knowing if an image was taken on a Sony dslr, and Android or an iPhone? And entitled…? This is so you can prove your image is real? The hell you talking about here?
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
No, you cannot use metadata to prove an image is real. It is less than trivial to fake.
Most photos on the internet are camera phones, and you absolutely are not entitled to know what phone someone has. Knowing someone’s phone has infinitely more value to fingerprinting a user than including metadata could ever theoretically have to demonstrate whether a photo is legitimate or not.
Photos without a specific, on record provenance from a credible source are no longer useful for evidence of anything. You cannot go back from that.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Meta data creates a string, if you want to claim ownership of an image and I show an image with earlier metadata, who’s is the real one? Yes it can be faked, but it can also be traced. Thats not a reason to not do something, the hell? That’s like suggesting you can’t police murders because someone can fake a murder.
What is identifiable about the type of phone you have…?
And without that exit data you can’t prove any of that… you realize this… yeah…?
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
You very clearly have no idea whatsoever what you’re talking about. This is all complete nonsense.
Anyone can write exif data to say anything they want it to. You “showing an image with earlier metadata” is completely arbitrary and doesn’t tell anyone literally anything about which one is more likely to be “real”. Again, it’s not “weak” or “bad” evidence. It is literally not capable of being evidence.