Proof of Capture: Apple Reference Image, but open source and using steganography

"Genuine" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. A big part of the threat model for image provenance/signing/similarity diffing is identifying when images aren't genuine--if they're from elsewhere than they're claimed to be from, or have been modified.

You're right that there are privacy/security costs to attributability, and that it's not always the right thing to do. I hope that keeping provenance information either entirely cryptographic in nature (okay, the image has a signature--you can't determine anything about that signature other than "signed with this key y/n" when you present a key) or reducing identifying or fingerprintable information presence in provenance metadata is sufficient to mitigate some of those concerns.

Dr. Neal Krawetz has written and researched a lot about this topic:

https://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1069-The-B...

https://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1098-Metas...

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/?/archives/529-Kind-of-Lik...

That could obviously be used for good or bad purposes.

Reminds me of tracking dots in printers. It was implemented to provide a way to track a document to its source.

This post https://foxfire.blog/explorations/the-typewriter-that-became... claims "specific machine":

> The forensic science behind this was genuinely elegant. No two typewriters print identically. The mechanical tolerances of individual typebars—those metal arms that swing up to strike the ribbon—create unique signatures. Forensic document examiners look at three primary characteristics: alignment (whether a letter strikes slightly above or below the baseline), impression (whether one side of a letter prints darker than the other due to uneven wear), and damage (a chipped serif, a broken bowl on a lowercase “g”, a filled-in counter on an “e”). Taken together, these micro-imperfections form a pattern as distinctive as a human fingerprint—or so the authorities claimed.

> The East German Stasi took this principle to its industrial extreme. They maintained an exhaustive registry of type samples, a vast database of typewriter fingerprints. When a dissident pamphlet surfaced, the Stasi could compare its letterforms against their archive and, in theory, trace the text back to the specific machine that produced it. The countermeasure was ingenious in its simplicity: dissidents sought out pre-communist typewriter models—early Mignon or Ideal D machines manufactured before the registry existed. A typewriter without a file was a typewriter without a name. It could speak and not be traced.

Since they had control of commerce, I suppose it was possible to intercept every typewriter and "fingerprint" it before it is sold, or even tweak the typewriter to produce something unique (e.g. chipping a typebar so it prints a particular letter distinctly). Hah, needing to register your name/address to buy a typewriter feels spooky too. And if it gets stolen, you'd have to tell the authorities that it's no longer in your possession.

a continuous stream of video from factory to customer to observation should prevent screen attacks, if there is a trustworthy framework for processing and checking the absence of screen slide-ins etc.

I imagine on apple silicon this is buried deep in silicon / ISP IP block, and isn't a discrete IC.

So only on devices with LiDAR / that can capture depth map.

is a post about Google Pixel C2PA cameras experiencing contact with reality

Nobody cares if your social media photos are edited, they probably are, it's fine.

Can you clarify what your actual complaint is here? Putting aside for a second obvious implementation options, it's pretty standard that there can be a tradeoff between privacy and trust. Any of us are still perfectly free to upload images for fun to forums or social media or whatever that are private, or edited or whatever we like. But if there's something we [i]want[/i] to prove, this gives an extra option to do so. And in particular the set of cases where one cares the most about enhancing authenticity appears at first thought to be pretty much a union set with the cases where one will put their name (or at least the location and time of the picture in question) behind the image? Like, can you give examples of specific cases you are imagining where simultaneously the photo itself reveals no information about time and location [i]and[/i] it's something local/national/international-newsworthy where people would fear AI-alteration? Like, say you're photographing at a protest to document it including any violations of law. By definition, the images you take reveal the location and the time. That's the whole point of them. Having the location and timestamp signed wouldn't reveal anything extra as long as the photo was unaltered.

And actual legit journalism always has name(s) standing behind the reporting. Or for that matter, even if we're merely talking something like a review of a product, is it actually wrong to put a name or pseudonym behind that review if you expect readers to give you much credence? I mean, you'd be free in terms of law and tech to not bother. But even long before the current growing AI-slop age a lot of us have been starting to treat anonymous reviews with a lot of skepticism, or discounting them entirely for some product classes, for good reason.

Even in terms of maintaining privacy, remember we already have "tools" for that which this in turn could further help. You could privately report a tip to a reporter at a media organization, and then they could report on that without revealing you but be able to say "we verified the signature of the raw image and sensor data" alongside normal follow up. Then it's their name, but having a stronger chain behind it could still be helpful in places.

Finally getting back to "implementation options", there's no technical reason the image and multiple sets of metadata can't all be signed separately by the sensor stack such that you can pick & choose what to include and still have it all be signed, with readers giving greater or lesser weight to the trust based on your choices.

Would that ever be relevant for a screenshot?