The obvious limitation being that you can take a real photo with attestation with a real camera of a real computer screen displaying any fake shit you can imagine, then you have an officially hashed photo of anything.
Comment on Watermarks offer no defense against deepfakes, study suggests
Winter_Oven@piefed.social 2 days ago
I think maybe an update to the image format standards, where it like somehow includes a hash of the instrument that has taken the photo and video, and thus, only such media that can be verified to have been taken by a physical instrument can be used in like legal matters, or reporting or journals.
scratchee@feddit.uk 2 days ago
chellomere@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If you’ve ever tried this, the moire pattern of pixels is obvious. You’d need a much higher resolution display than image sensor.
Landless2029@lemmy.world 2 days ago
So you want to EMB make, model and SN into images now? Metadata on crack
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 2 days ago
If the hash can be created at the time the inage/media is created then it can be faked.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 days ago
There are ways to be sure of authenticity, ways that can’t be faked.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 days ago
So we should all have to throw away or phones, cameras, etc. And buy new ones that have proprietary hardware attestation?
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Oh come on, you’re gonna do that in two years anyway.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 days ago
No <3
cynar@lemmy.world 2 days ago
There are already plans for metadata signing. I think some high end Canon cameras might do it already. It basically allows proof (via public private key of the hash) that a particular camera took that photo.
The idea is that you can create a chain of custody with an image. Each edit requires a new signature, with each party responsible for verifying the previous chain, to protect their own reputation.
It’s far from perfect, but will help a lot with things like legal cases.