[HN Gopher] Roc Camera
___________________________________________________________________
Roc Camera
Author : martialg
Score : 517 points
Date : 2025-10-24 02:54 UTC (20 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (roc.camera)
(TXT) w3m dump (roc.camera)
| cma wrote:
| > Creates a Zero Knowledge (ZK) Proof of the camera sensor data
| and other metadatas
|
| How do you stop someone from taking a picture of an AI picture?
| It will still come from the sensor.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| Maybe adding a depth sensor/lidar might fix this?
| c0balt wrote:
| Probably look for display artifacts (pixel borders)?
|
| But a fixture that takes a good enough screen + enough distance
| to make the photographed pixels imperceptible is likely just a
| medium hurdle for a motivated person.
|
| You probably can't fully avoid it but adding more sensors
| (depth) will make such a fixture quite a bit more expensive.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| I'm not seeing what this is product is trying to solve? A zero
| knowledge proof to say it isn't AI ? I think you could do this
| with a disposable camera or Polaroids and a photo scanner that
| makes the zero knowledge proofs .
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I love my medium format film cameras. I think everyone
| interested in photography should try it. Yashicas (just as an
| example of a company that made good medium format film cameras)
| are surprisingly affordable on eBay. I've had good luck buying
| from Japan, FWIW.
| scrps wrote:
| I'll throw Mamiya 645 in there for a good medium format
| camera as well. Yashica is great, I own a Yashica Electro 35
| and it is awesome no thought rangefinder.
| seg_lol wrote:
| With the tariffs this is no longer possible for US persons.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Do the tariffs apply on used items as well? In any case
| such cameras are fairly cheap nowadays
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| They use to fall under de-minimus? But no longer. So
| there are _duties_ to pay.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Huh?
|
| Tariffs shouldn't prevent buying stuff, you just have to,
| y'know, pay a tariff on import.
|
| In this case, a Japanese made camera will incur a 15%
| tariff.
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| Most countries, including Japan, India, Canada, and
| nearly the entire EU, have completely stopped shipping
| packages to US consumers. This is not because of the
| tariffs themselves, but because the US apparently has no
| system in place for actually handling the tariffs on
| goods that previously qualified for the de minimis
| exemption. Two months and counting with no information on
| when shipping might resume.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Some merchants in those countries have stopped. There
| isn't a general stoppage of everything.
|
| I just checked and you can still send goods between Japan
| and the US. There are still merchants selling the exact
| mentioned camera on eBay that will ship to the US.
|
| Here is the exact camera mentioned, offered by a Japanese
| seller, that will ship to the United States:
| https://www.ebay.com/itm/317445808304
|
| Can you source your claim that absolutely no courier is
| capable of shipping goods into the US? I can't find
| anything using google, or on any courier websites.
|
| FedEx does have information about how to correctly fill
| out the forms for the purposes of tariffs, but does not
| mention that they will not accept shipments.
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| I see, that was my mistake then. I was unaware that
| services like FedEx were still accepting packages. My
| personal experience was that I have been unable to ship
| to the US for months because the carrier I use stopped
| accepting packages, and was under the impression they all
| had given the number of countries for which this was true
| and the news coverage I had seen. I wonder why so many
| countries' postal services have stopped while some
| couriers like FedEx continue to operate.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| There were some temporary stops, but mostly they resolved
| pretty quickly. I think an issue is that the US requested
| that tariffs be paid upfront at the sending end and a
| some couriers aren't set up for that. Or that they needed
| time to set it up.
|
| Many of the postal and courier systems that suspended
| service have since set up the systems they need, and are
| happily moving packages into the US, but it tends not to
| make the news.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Talk to the seller. I just ordered a used light meter
| from Japan. Shipper just wants the duties paid up-front.
| varenc wrote:
| What proof is there that the photo scanner is scanning a
| genuine photo and not something AI generated that looks like a
| Polaroid?
| sodality2 wrote:
| What proof is there that this camera is photographing a
| genuine scene?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
| defrost wrote:
| If Elsie and Frances had the technology we could have a
| digitally signed zero knowledge proof that their photo's
| captured a genuine scene that included cardboard cutouts of
| fairies.
|
| It was a real moment with objects that Bishop Berkeley
| could have kicked.
| flomo wrote:
| Recalling an old scandal about an office copier/scanner which
| was doing some OCR cleanup and changing numbers.
| bcraven wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6156238 (2013)
|
| Interestingly it wasn't the OCR that was the problem but
| the JBIG2 compression.
| ryanjshaw wrote:
| > A zero knowledge proof to say it isn't AI
|
| Seems like it.
|
| > a photo scanner that makes the zero knowledge proofs
|
| Presumably at some point the intention is to add other sensors
| to the camera e.g. for depth information.
| rendaw wrote:
| A different thread mentions "what if you take a photo of an AI
| photo with the Roc camera?" - I still think that would be hard
| due to perspective, lighting, various other artifacts.
|
| Scanning an image would be much easier to dupe though -
| scanners are basically controlled perspective/lighting
| environments so scanning an actual polaroid vs an ai generated
| polaroid printed on photo paper would be pretty
| indistinguishable I think.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| Maybe I am just naive, but I don't see why taking a photo of
| a screen, projection, or print out would be hard. Wouldn't it
| just need even lighting and tripod?
|
| Adding something like a LIDAR and somehow baking that data
| into the meta data could be fun
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| Then people will connect their fake image and LIDAR feed to
| where the CMOS is connected. Like always with half-baked
| digital attestation chains, laypersons will argue "Oh, but
| who's gonna do that?" and the reality is that even private
| modders and hackers are perfectly willing and capable of
| doing this and will jump on it right away, and if it's just
| for the fun to distribute a certified picture of an alien
| giving everyone the finger. Of course, tamper-proof designs
| would be possible, but they are extremely expensive.
|
| On a side note, the best way to attack this particular
| camera is probably by attacking the software.
| bux93 wrote:
| Don't limit your thinking to taking photos - video also
| works fine. It's how The Mandalorian is produced. Instead
| of green screens, the actors are in front of floor-to-
| ceiling LED screens with live rendered CGI.
|
| In old movies, going back to the 1930s and 40s, back-
| projection is usually seen when characters are driving in a
| car, and you can usually spot it. These days, not so much.
| jppope wrote:
| I can't tell does this have adversarial AI built in?
| vlmutolo wrote:
| I wonder how this compares to similar initiatives by e.g. Sony
| [0] and Leica [1].
|
| [0]: https://authenticity.sony.net/camera/en-us/
|
| [1]: https://petapixel.com/2023/10/26/leica-m11-p-review-as-
| authe...
| sbinnee wrote:
| I knew that Leica is generally expensive, but the model on the
| review is insanely expensive (over 10K USD?). It is not even
| comparable.
| bcraven wrote:
| It's not the camera that is important though, but the
| technology:
|
| https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.2/inde.
| ..
| nayuki wrote:
| Canon gave users the option to sign their photographs with "add
| original decision data". It got cracked.
|
| * https://petapixel.com/2010/12/01/russian-software-firm-
| break...
|
| *
| https://www.elcomsoft.com/presentations/Forging_Canon_Origin...
| m00x wrote:
| and you think this rushed product won't be?
| spaqin wrote:
| Probably won't be cracked, as there will be little to no
| interest as such device will have no use in any
| professional setting.
| swores wrote:
| I would broadly expect software made by most camera brands
| to be shit, while I would expect a developer who creates
| their own hardware projects (generally, not talking
| specifically about cameras) to range from idiots who have
| no idea what they're doing (like me, though to be fair I
| also wouldn't release it believing it to be good) to highly
| skilled coders who would get it right despite being on
| their own.
|
| So I wouldn't automatically assume that a product like this
| would be better designed, but I would think there's a
| chance it might have been!
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| Compared to those, this is like a weekend project that a high
| school student could accomplish.
| keyle wrote:
| This is rather expensive for what looks like a home 3D printed
| toy with some cute software.
|
| Other than that it's a 16MP Sony CMOS, I'd expect a pretty noisy
| picture... How do I get my photos off the
| camera? Coming soon. We're working on export
| functionality to get your photos off the camera.
|
| It would be more interesting if the software was open source.
| Gigachad wrote:
| It wouldn't work at all as open source since you could just
| modify the source to sign your AI generated pictures.
| drdaeman wrote:
| This is patently incorrect. Just remember the whole TiVo
| affair and reasons why GPLv3 was born. Source code
| availability does not guarantee ability to run it on the
| particular device.
| pabs3 wrote:
| The Software Freedom Conservancy thinks the GPLv2
| guarantees the ability to modify existing GPLv2 software on
| a device, but does not guarantee the ability to still use
| the proprietary software running on top of that, and that
| the same applies with GPLv3. Reading the preamble of the
| GPLv2, I'm inclined to agree with them. Hasn't been tested
| in court yet though I think.
|
| https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/
| https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-
| and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2017...
| a-dub wrote:
| it would. it would just require pki and a secure enclave that
| lives directly on the imaging chip to support it.
| _def wrote:
| Is that possible with the chip used here?
|
| > What are the camera's specs?
|
| > The camera has a 16MP resolution, 4656 x 3496 pixels. It
| uses a Sony IMX519 CMOS sensor.
| Retr0id wrote:
| Seems like a pretty generic part available as a module
| https://thepihut.com/products/arducam-imx519-autofocus-
| camer...
|
| Uses the standard MIPI/CSI interface, which is not
| authenticated or anything of the sort.
|
| You can also buy HDMI-to-CSI adapters
| https://thepihut.com/products/hdmi-to-csi-adapter-for-
| raspbe... - should be easy enough to pipe your own video
| feed in as a substitute.
| philipswood wrote:
| One could design a toolchain that posts a hashed signed
| version of the source used to produce a signed binary. Build
| and deploy what you want and if you want people to trust it
| and opt in then it is publicly available.
|
| In this case you get the signature and it confirms the device
| and links to a tamper proof snapshot of the code used to
| build its firmware.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| Okay. What prevents you from printing out a AI generated
| picture and taking a photo of that with the camera?
| timberland127 wrote:
| 46 chromosomes
| intrasight wrote:
| Nothing. But I know it's you and not the New York Times
| publishing that photo. Now you get it?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > This is rather expensive for what looks like a home 3D
| printed toy with some cute software.
|
| This attitude really rubs me the wrong way, especially on a
| site called Hacker News.
|
| I think we absolutely should be supporting projects like this
| (if you think they're worth supporting), else all we're left
| with is giant corporation monoculture. Hardware startups are
| incredibly difficult, and by their nature new hardware products
| from small companies will always cost more than products
| produced by huge companies that have economies of scale and can
| afford billions of losses on new products.
|
| So yes, I'm all for people taking risks with new hardware, and
| even if it doesn't have the most polished design, if it's doing
| something new and interesting I think it's kinda shitty to just
| dismiss it as looking like "a 3D printed toy with some cute
| software".
| keyle wrote:
| Hey it's fine to make a 3d printed camera and cool stuff like
| that. But it's another thing to make it a product, that isn't
| shipping yet and asking $399 with a shiny website and with
| closed source software.
|
| I don't mean to disregard the technical feat, but I question
| the intent.
| didacusc wrote:
| Couldn't agree more!
| BoorishBears wrote:
| This literally looks like someone made a closed source
| hardware kit out of mostly open parts and software then
| shipped it preassembled.
|
| I support it but I recognize it is a 3D printed toy with some
| cute software... toys can be interesting too. Not everything
| needs to be a startup.
| litlTucker wrote:
| Check Ali for "shitty" minature key-ring C-thru packaged
| cameras that look just like this "3D printed toy with some
| cute software", going for $4.00, not $400!
| wiether wrote:
| Please, stop!
|
| I've been strugling to fight the urge to by a "Kodak
| Charmera" for a month now, don't tempt me again!
| nehal3m wrote:
| If you buy one, you won't be tempted anymore.
| deckar01 wrote:
| The BoM is ~$150 MSRP. I doubt the ZKP Rube Goldberg
| contraption will survive a day of reverse engineering once it
| gets into the wild.
| typpilol wrote:
| You literally can't even export the photos...
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| It would be cool if this was open source because looking at
| the pictured this is all off the shelf hardware. I am
| guessing only bespoke thing here is the stl for the case
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >This attitude really rubs me the wrong way, especially on a
| site called Hacker News.
|
| It's just that even in the realm of hardware by small teams
| built upon Pi boards this is very overprice and poor
| construction and cheap components for what it is.
|
| Selling for $400 there are case solutions other than a cheap
| 3D print, and button choices other than the cheapest button
| on the market.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| This isn't a hardware start-up, it's a software start-up
| using off the shelf consumer hardware to give their software
| product a home.
|
| If it was a hardware start-up, the camera would be $80 built
| with custom purpose made hardware.
|
| Once you decide to launch a hardware product composed of
| completed consumer hardware products, you are already dead.
| All the margin is already accounted for.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Simple, you remove the sdcard and mount it on linux, the
| security of a Pi is a joke.
|
| I wouldn't mind if it was 3D printed if it wasn't done with
| like a layer height of 0.28, half transparent so it looks
| weird, and intended for outdoor use where 3D prints are porous
| and water will seep through. The housing needs at the very
| least some spray painting and a clearcoat.
|
| What I do mind is the cheapest off the shelf diy button lmao.
| They are like cents a piece, just add a fucking metal one that
| are like a few cents more if you're selling a $400 camera,
| cheapass. I wouldn't be surprised if the software side with the
| "proof" being a similarly haphazardly brittle implementation as
| the construction.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| put this in a durable rangefinder form factor and it would be
| great as a journalism camera.
| jeffamcgee wrote:
| If you take this to ILM's The Volume, you can prove that The
| Mandolorian is real.
| d--b wrote:
| This looks like a hipster toy.
|
| It's possible that this could have value in journalism or law
| enforcement.
|
| Just make it look the part. Make it black and put some decent
| lens on it.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I'm pretty sure forensic cameras already exist for this
| purpose. And as far as I can tell, there isn't really any
| bulletproof way to do this other than embed a signing key in
| the camera and hope no one manages to extract it, rendering the
| whole thing pointless.
|
| I guess you could have a unique signing key per camera and
| blacklist known leaked keys.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Canon and Nikon both did this. You paid a premium for a
| "signature analysis" app. The target was for things like law
| enforcement, where authentication was important.
|
| They got cracked with a year or two. Not sure if they still
| offer the capability.
| sbinnee wrote:
| I have been happily using fujifilm x100 for about 10 years now? I
| bought a second hand one for about $300. You can buy a decent
| camera cheaper than a smartphone, as it should be.
| bobertdowney wrote:
| Could Apple or Google do this without updating their hardware? I
| see a relevant patent (US20220294640A1) and it looks like one of
| the inventors is at Google now.
| akersten wrote:
| back in my day when we wanted to prove a picture was "real" (and
| not Photoshopped), we just posted the .NEF file
| padolsey wrote:
| What concerns me most in the era of gen AI irt photography is
| journalism. We need truth, most especially when limited-means
| citizen journalism is the only reliable source of that truth.
|
| But I feel like the only way to accomplish fool-proof photos we
| can trust in a trustless way (i.e. without relying on e.g. the
| Press Association to vet) is to utterly PACK the hardware with
| sensors and tamper-proof attestation so the capture can't be
| plausibly faked: multi-spectral (RGB + IR + UV) imaging,
| depth/LiDAR, stereo cameras, PRNU fingerprinting, IMU motion
| data, secure GPS with attested fix, a hardware clock and secure
| element for signing, ambient audio, lens telemetry, environmental
| sensors (temperature, barometer, humidity, light spectrum) -- all
| wrapped in cryptographic proofs that bind these readings to the
| pixels.
|
| In the meantime however, I'd trust a 360deg go-pro with some kind
| of signature of manafacture. OR just a LOT of people taking
| photos in a given vicinity. Hard to fake that.
| Fade_Dance wrote:
| This is probably one of those scenarios where if someone wants
| to fake it they're going to fake it (or at least it will be a
| never ending arms race, and I expect AI to keep close chase),
| while a basic security solution will suffice for 99% of use
| cases, including standard journalism. After all, skilled
| photoshop+computational tools can already do expert fakery in
| journalism. (Just look at the last Abroadinjapan video earlier
| today for a good callout of Photoshop editing to increase
| engagement).
| petesergeant wrote:
| I wrote this about 7 years ago:
| https://github.com/pjlsergeant/multimedia-trust-and-certific...
| esseph wrote:
| Mine isn't journalism, it's the court system.
|
| Before long, it might be somewhat "easy" to prove anything.
| simultsop wrote:
| For a moment I thought a software solution will be shared at the
| end. Did not expect a camera marketing.
| positus wrote:
| It seems like one could just shoot film and make darkroom prints
| and accomplish the same thing?
| seemaze wrote:
| pictorialists used the darkroom to distort reality more than a
| century ago!
| modeless wrote:
| Seems to me that a camera like this is necessarily, at least in
| part, a closed system that blocks you from controlling the
| software or hardware on the device you supposedly own. It's hard
| for me to think this is a good direction. And as others have
| pointed out, it can't prevent attacks through the analog hole,
| e.g. photographing a display.
|
| It's not feasible or desirable for our hardware devices to verify
| the information they record autonomously. A real solution to the
| problem of attribution in the age of AI must be based on
| reputation. People should be able to vouch for information in
| verifiable ways with consequences for being untrustworthy.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| I don't think reputation gets you that far alone, we already
| live in a world where misinformation spreads like wildfire
| through follower counts and page ranks.
|
| The problem is quality takes time, and therefore loses
| relevance.
|
| We need a way to break people out of their own human nature and
| reward delayed gratification by teaching critical thinking
| skills and promoting thoughtfulness.
|
| I sadly don't see an exciting technological solution here. If
| anything it's tweaks to the funding models that control the
| interests of businesses like Instagram, Reddit, etc.
| noduerme wrote:
| Why can't posting a _verifiably true_ image create as much or
| more instant gratification as sending a fake one? It will
| probably be more gratifying, once everyone is sending fake
| ones and yours is the only real one (if people can know
| that).
| 7952 wrote:
| Lies are just better at reproducing themselves than truth.
| noduerme wrote:
| Which makes truth more scarce, hence more valuable.
| 7952 wrote:
| Sure, but you were asking why truth is less gratifying.
|
| Also, "truth" is clearly something that requires more
| resources. It is a lifelong endeavour of
| art/science/learning. You can certainly luck into it on
| occasion but most of us never will. And often something
| fictional can project truth better than evidence or
| analysis ever can. Almost everything turns into an
| abstraction.
| altairprime wrote:
| > _camera like this is necessarily, at least in part, a closed
| system that blocks you from controlling the software or
| hardware on the device you supposedly own_
|
| Attestation systems are not inherently in conflict with
| repurposeability. If they let you install user firmware, then
| it simply won't produce attestations linked to their signed
| builds, assuming you retain any of that functionality at all.
| If you want attestations to their key instead of yours, you
| just reinstall their signed OS, the HSM boot attests to
| whoever's OS signature it finds using its unique hardware key,
| and everything works fine (even in a dual boot scenario).
|
| What this _does_ do is prevent you from altering their
| integrity-attested operating system to misrepresent that photos
| were taken by _their_ operating system. You can, technically,
| mod it all you want -- you just won't have their signature on
| the attestation, because you had to sign it with some sort of
| key to boot it, and certainly that won't be theirs.
|
| They could even release their source code under BSD, GPL, or
| AGPL and it would make no difference to any of this; _no_ open
| source license compels producing the crypto private keys you
| signed your build with, and any such argument for that applying
| to a license would be radioactive for it. Can you imagine
| trying to explain to your Legal team that you can't extract a
| private key from an HSM to comply with the license? So it's
| never going to happen: open source is about releasing code, not
| about letting you pass off your own work as someone else's.
|
| > _must be based on reputation_
|
| But it is already. By example:
|
| Is this vendor trusted in a court of law? Probably, I would
| imagine, it would stand up to the court's inspection; given
| their motivations they no doubt have an excellent paper trail.
|
| Are your _personal_ attestations, those generated by your
| modded camera, trusted by a court of law? Well, that's an
| interesting question: Did you create a fully reproducible build
| pipeline so that the court can inspect your customizations and
| decide whether to trust them? Did you keep record of your
| changes and the signatures of your build? Are you willing to
| provide your source code and build process to the court?
|
| So, your desire for reputation is already satisfied, assuming
| that they allow OS modding. If they do not, that's a voluntary-
| business decision, not a mandatory-technical one! There is
| nothing justifiable by _cryptography_ or _reputation_ in any
| theoretical plans that lock users out of repurposing their
| device.
| echelon wrote:
| This feels like pearl clutching.
|
| We do not need "proof". We lived without it, and we'll live
| without it again.
|
| I grew up before broadband - we survived without photographing
| every moment, too. It was actually kind of nice. Social media
| is the real fluke of our era, not image generation.
|
| And hypothetically if these cryptographic "non-AI really super
| serious real" verification systems do become in vogue, what
| happens if quantum supremacy beats crypto? What then?
|
| You don't even need to beat all of crypto. Just beat the
| signing algorithm. I'm sure it's going to happen all the time
| with such systems, then none of the data can be "trusted"
| anyway.
|
| I'm stretching a bit here, but this feels like "NFTs for life's
| moments". Designed just to appease the haters.
|
| You aren't going to need this stuff. Life will continue.
| Gigachad wrote:
| This worked because we also used to have significantly better
| and more trustworthy news organisations that you could just
| trust did the original research and verified the facts. Now
| they just copy stories off Reddit and make up their own lies.
| t43562 wrote:
| Back to the time before photographs then - the 1800s.
|
| Crime scene photographs won't be evidence anymore. You
| photograph your flat (apartment) when you move in to prove
| that all the marks on the walls were already there and that
| won't be evidence anymore. The police mistreat you but your
| video of it won't be evidence either. etc
| Gigachad wrote:
| The analog hole can be mitigated by using more sensors. Store a
| depth map, a time, gps location, and maybe more.
|
| If you've got a photo of a public figure, but it doesn't match
| the records of where they were at that time, it's now
| suspicious.
| card_zero wrote:
| Yes, that might make these fake-proof cameras popular, to the
| point where people start putting in the necessary effort to
| defeat them by monkeying around with the time server and the
| depth sensor and the gps signal. Then you get a really well-
| supported fake image that's very effective because it's
| authenticated.
| avidiax wrote:
| I feel the trouble with this is two-fold:
|
| It's not enough that the photograph is signed and has
| metadata. Someone has to interpret that metadata to decide
| authentic versus not. One can have an "authentic" photo of a
| rear projection screen. It wouldn't be appropriate to have an
| "authentic" checkmark next to this photo if it claims to not
| be a photo of a rear projection screen. The context matters
| to authenticity.
|
| Secondly, the existence of such "authentic" photos will be
| used to call all non-authenticated photos into doubt.
|
| So it doesn't even really solve any problem, but creates new
| problems.
| 7952 wrote:
| Practically I think there are situations where it is not so
| black and white. Like camera footage used as evidence in a
| court case. Signing a video with a public key would give some
| way to verify the source and chain of custody. Why wouldn't you
| in that situation? At a minimum it makes tapering harder and
| weakens false claims that something has been tampered with.
| cush wrote:
| > A real solution to the problem of attribution in the age of
| AI must be based on reputation
|
| This is actually one of the theoretical predictions from
| Eliezer Yudkowsky, who says that as information becomes less
| and less verifiable, we're going to need to re-enter a pre-
| information-era - where people will have to know and trust the
| sources of important information they encounter, in some cases
| needing to hear it first hand or in person.
| cush wrote:
| > And as others have pointed out, it can't prevent attacks
| through the analog hole, e.g. photographing a display
|
| Are there systems that do prevent photographing a display? Like
| accompanying the photo with an IR depth map?
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Am I just a crazy cynic or are ZK proofs here just a buzzword.
|
| Like, how is this any different than having each camera equipped
| with a vendor controlled key and then having it sign every photo?
|
| If you can spoof the sensor enough to reuse the key, couldn't you
| spoof the sensor enough to fool a verifier into believing your
| false proof?
| injidup wrote:
| You take a photo of an AI generated photo. What's yr proof
| worth then?
| a3w wrote:
| Yes, IIRC if you measure an image signal, i.e. here: image,
| that is at twice the resolution of the sensor you use, there
| won't be any artifacts.
|
| Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.
|
| But, if the sony sensor also measures depth information, this
| attack vector will fall flat. Pun intended.
| Barbing wrote:
| The technique you describe has seen some use by some major
| vendors for 5 to 10 years right?
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Not sure.
| d_silin wrote:
| You can absolutely sign the image with the on-camera certificate,
| for example, but that would too boring of a solution to hype.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| See that's what I'm saying.
| rukuu001 wrote:
| Literally manufacturing trust eh?
| wilg wrote:
| There's simply no technical solution to authenticating
| photographs as far as I can tell.
|
| The only real solution I can think of is just to have multiple
| independent parties photograph the same event and use social
| trust. Luckily this solution is getting easier now that almost
| everyone is generally no further than 3 feet away from multiple
| cameras.
| beeflet wrote:
| you know what grinds my gears? The fact that it takes 2 seconds
| for the android camera app to open, even when I use the
| shortcut on the lock screen. It's a step backwards from point-
| and-shoot cameras.
|
| I was trying to take a picture of a gecko the other day, and it
| missed half of the event while the app was loading.
| ares623 wrote:
| I don't know what this gives that a film camera with slide film
| loaded doesn't.
|
| Both cameras still allow "staging" a scene and taking a shot of
| that. Both cameras will both say that the scene was shot in the
| physical world, but that's it.
|
| I would argue that slide film is more "verifiable" in the ways
| that matter: easier to explain to laypeople how slide film works,
| and it's them that you want to convince.
|
| If I was a film or camera manufacturer I would try and go for
| this angle in marketing.
| geor9e wrote:
| Can't find slide printing services easily put AI images onto
| slide film for you?
|
| I think the point of this movement toward cryptographically
| signing image sensors is so people can confidently prove images
| are real on the internet in a momentary click, without having
| to get hold of the physical original and hiring a forensic lab
| to analyze it.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| You can get things printed onto a transparency mounted in a
| slide frame. Actual slide film, though, must be done by
| exposing light. When you want another image put onto a slide,
| the easiest way to do it is to just take a picture using a
| camera.
|
| That's beside the broader point that OP made: it doesn't
| matter since you can just point a verifiable camera at a
| staged scene (or reproduction of an AI image) and have an
| image of something that doesn't represent reality. You can
| cryptographically sign, or have an original slide, of an
| image that is faked outside the camera.
| rendaw wrote:
| Are you saying the slide itself would be proof? I think the use
| cases are different - this camera gives you a file and
| signature you can transmit digitally.
| noyesno wrote:
| https://www.nikonusa.com/content/nikon-authenticity-service
| already exists?
| shayanbahal wrote:
| this is a gem from the past I believe
| alberth wrote:
| How does this differ from a kids digital camera that costs only
| 1/10th the cost.
|
| Not trolling. Genuinely don't understand.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Camera-Digital-Toddler-Christmas-Birt...
| geor9e wrote:
| There is a movement to cryptographically sign images in order
| to prove that they are real raw photographs, by selling
| hardware in which the cryptographic key is placed close to the
| camera sensor to prevent tampering.
|
| This is one attempt.
| troupo wrote:
| So it's a Raspberry Pi attaching a ZK Proof to an image to say
| that this image was taken on this particular Raspberry Pi.
|
| That's it. That's the verification?
|
| So what happens when I use a Raspberry Pi to attach a ZK proof to
| an AI- generated image?
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| How could this possibly validate that the camera sensor that's
| attached to it is actually a camera sensor and not just an FPGA
| sending raw data?
| m00x wrote:
| you can't
| TheDong wrote:
| You have to push the signing as far out as possible.
|
| The light sensor must have a key built into the hardware at the
| factory, and that sensor must attest that it hasn't detected
| any tampering, that gets input into the final signature.
|
| We must petition God to start signing photons, and the camera
| sensor must also incorporate the signature of every photon
| input to it, and verify each photon was signed by God's private
| key.
|
| God isn't currently signing photons, but if he could be
| convinced to it would make this problem a lot easier so I'm
| sure he'll listen to reason soon.
| peteforde wrote:
| I used to be really (really really) into photography. I respect
| anyone working hard on a physical product, but this misses the
| mark on every front I can think of.
|
| The real issue that photographers grapple with, emotionally and
| financially, is that pictures have become so thoroughly
| commodified that nobody assigns them cultural value anymore. They
| are the thumbnail you see before the short video clip starts
| playing.
|
| Nobody has ever walked past a photograph because they can't
| inspect its digital authenticity hash. This is especially funny
| to me because I used to struggle with the fact that people
| looking at your work don't know or care what kind of camera or
| process was involved. They don't know if I spent two hours zoomed
| in removing microscopic dust particles from the scanning process
| after a long hike to get a single shot at 5:30am, or if it was
| just the 32nd of 122 shots taken in a burst by someone holding up
| an iPad Pro Max at a U2 concert.
|
| This all made me sad for a long time, but I ultimately came to
| terms with the fact that my own incentives were perverse; I was
| seeking the external gratification of getting likes just like
| everyone else. If you can get back to a place where you're taking
| photographs or making music or doing 5 minute daily synth drills
| for your own happiness with no expectation of external validity,
| you will be far happier taking that $399 and buying a Mamiya
| C330.
|
| This video is about music, but it's also about everything worth
| doing for the right reasons.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvQF4YIvxwE
| october8140 wrote:
| The biggest lie capitalism tells us is that something only has
| value if it can be sold.
| grumpy-de-sre wrote:
| Or just maybe free markets expose the bitter truth. That can
| take a lot of self reflection to come to terms with. Applies
| to a lot of aspects to life, eg. career planning, creative
| endeavors etc.
|
| But at the same time it's true that some vital public
| activities aren't rewarded by the system atm. Eg. quality
| journalism, family rearing, open source, etc. Often that's an
| issue of privatized costs and socialized rewards. Finding a
| way to correct for this is a really big deal.
| fsloth wrote:
| "Finding a way to correct for this is a really big deal."
|
| But aren't you now feeding back to the system? Why would
| there need to be a financial reward and incentive for
| everything?
|
| I do realize "contributing free value" is perceived by some
| as free value _a third party can capture and financially
| profit from_ " which might the reason for thinking of how
| to then cycle some of that value back?
| grumpy-de-sre wrote:
| Thinking about the three examples I gave, I think it's
| more that the externalities of not doing these activities
| aren't priced in.
|
| Tabloid press is fantastically profitable, but fake news
| over time will erode a great deal of social trust.
|
| Closed source software might be individually advantageous
| but collectively holds back industrial progress. It's a
| similar reason to why patents were first introduced for
| physical goods.
|
| And yes people voluntarily without kids should have to
| pay significantly more social contributions.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I think this is only true when you abstract things away
| from their spatiotemporal context and treat market
| information as a snapshot. The art market thought Van Gogh
| was a weirdo with bad brush technique until after he died
| and people began to recognize how innovative his work was.
| grumpy-de-sre wrote:
| Naturally many a startup has also failed due to similar
| factors (only for the core idea to be resurrected some
| years later to great success).
| beeflet wrote:
| The desire to "make money" is generally a proxy for the
| desire to provide value for others. It is easier to justify
| the investment of labor and resources that went into the
| production a camera if you can reciprocate the value for
| others.
| numpad0 wrote:
| And the most important lesson Internet taught it is that
| something only has value when seller loses money on it.
| mlrtime wrote:
| Capitalism doesn't 'tell us' anything, it just like
| everything else has pros and cons.
|
| I don't know anyone who understand economics would say this,
| unless you're talking about very specific meanings of
| 'value'. I'm not trying to be pedantic, I know what you mean,
| but these comments are not insightful or helpful.
| Gigachad wrote:
| There is absolutely a market for social media that bans AI
| slop. People in general don't want the slop, but it's seeping
| in everywhere with no easy way to mass remove.
|
| The problem with the linked product is it's basically DRM with
| a baked in encryption key. And we have seen time and time again
| that with enough effort, it's always been possible to extract
| that key.
| XorNot wrote:
| Also the inversed incentive problem: the less people think it
| can be done, the more value in doing it.
|
| That said in theory TPMs are proof against this: putting that
| to the test at scale, publicly, would be quite useful.
| Someone wrote:
| > People in general don't want the slop
|
| True.
|
| > There is absolutely a market for social media that bans AI
| slop.
|
| There's a market for social media that bans slop, period. I
| don't think it matters how it was made.
|
| Also, that market may not be large. Yes, people prefer
| quality, but (how much) are they willing to pay for it?
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Respectfully, I completely disagree.
|
| People "at large" absolutely don't care about AI slop, even
| if they point and say eww when it's discussed. Some people
| care, and some additional people pretend they care, but it
| just isn't a real issue that is driving behavior. Putting
| aside (for now) the idea of misinformation, slop is socially
| problematic when it puts artists out of work, but social
| media slop is just a new, sadder, form of entertainment that
| is generally not replacing the work of an artist. People have
| been warning about the downfall of society with each new mode
| of entertainment forever. Instagram or TikTok don't need to
| remove slop, and people won't care after they acclimate.
|
| Misinformation and "trickery" is a real and horrific threat
| to society. It predates AI slop, but it's exponentially
| easier now. This camera, or something else with the same
| goal, could _maybe_ provide some level of social or
| journalistic relief to that issue. The problem, of course, is
| that this assumes that we 're OK with letting something be
| "real" only when someone can remember to bring a specialty
| camera. The ability of average citizens to film some
| injustice and share it globally with just their phone is a
| remarkably important social power we've unlocked, and would
| risk losing.
| pjerem wrote:
| Saying that there is a market for a sane social network
| does not means it's a market as big as the other social
| networks. You don't have to conquer the world to have a
| nice product.
| woodpanel wrote:
| > _People "at large" absolutely don't care about AI slop_
|
| I fear, your statement is impossible to be denied its
| validity, when "Tung Tung Tung Sahur"-Trading-Cards and
| "Tralalero Tralala"-T-Shirts are a thing.
| bstsb wrote:
| the majority of "Italian Brainrot" enjoyers are probably
| not old enough to be on social media regardless
| fsloth wrote:
| "People "at large" absolutely don't care about AI slop"
|
| I think this is true. In general I think enough population
| of the market actually does not care about quality as long
| as it exceeds a certain limited threshold.
|
| There's always been market for sub-par product. That's one
| of the features of the market I think. You can always find
| what is the cheapest, lowest quality offering you can sell
| at a profit.
| vanviegen wrote:
| > The ability of average citizens to film some injustice
| and share it globally with just their phone is a remarkably
| important social power we've unlocked, and would risk
| losing.
|
| I'd say we've already mostly lost that due to AI. We might
| gain it back if cryptographic camera signatures become
| commonplace (and aren't too easy too crack).
| muldvarp wrote:
| > There is absolutely a market for social media that bans AI
| slop.
|
| I fully agree, I just don't know how that could work.
|
| I think GenAI will kill the internet as we know it. The smart
| thing is (and always has been) to be online less and build
| real connections to real people offline.
| mig1 wrote:
| There's an assumption on HN that everyone can identify AI
| slop because pretty much everyone here can. But my personal
| experience and what I think might be more in line with
| reality is that the majority of social media users can't
| tell or don't care.
| fweimer wrote:
| The problem about DRM in this context is not that it's going
| to get broken (which is probably true if the product becomes
| sufficiently mainstream). It will be used to target
| photographers and take away their rights. With today's
| cameras, you have (at least in theory) some choice how much
| of your rights you give away when you give the pictures your
| took to someone else. With DRM in the camera, you'll likely
| end up with some subscription service, ceding a lot of
| control to the camera makers and their business partners.
| keepamovin wrote:
| I think real photography is sort of like archery, you know, in
| the moment, feeling it, release at the right time, to capture
| that. I think in a sense of the candid street, or Magnum
| photogs. That kind of spirit. And that is innately satisfying
| and a fun way to engage with the world around you. :)
| danielbln wrote:
| Even "unreal" photography can be like that . My phone may do
| all of the mechanical work + post-processing, but framing,
| angle, foreground/background and capturing just the right
| moment is just as much fun (well, for me anyway).
| barrell wrote:
| I also used to be really (really really) into photography.
| Personally, I've stopped taking pictures because of the stigma
| around a camera.
|
| Everyone, me more than most, doesn't want their picture taken,
| or to be in the background of other photos. When someone can
| take thousands of pictures an hour, and upload them all to some
| social media site to be permanently stored... idk it's shifted
| from a way to capture a moment to feeling like you're being
| survieled.
|
| A bit hyperbolic, but it's the best way to describe what I'm
| feeling
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Can't you just not care and power through? Someones always
| going to be miffed regardless. I keep a Rollei A110 on me at
| all times and a tiny Minox EC that takes me hours to refill.
| When I bring it out people love it. It's a throwback that
| people very much appreciate. I can see people getting miffed
| at a big digital camera though.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I have an entry level Sony Alpha that I picked up for a
| vacation earlier this year. With the portrait lens on there
| it definitely registers as "camera" far more than a phone.
| Between that factor and the hassle of having to manually go
| through and upload the photos afterward, I only take it on
| special occasions -- trips, hikes, etc. It's not worth all
| that hassle for trying to get day to day stuff.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Why not live a little and get a film camera? It's more
| time for sure but are you not tired of optimizing
| everything in life?
| asimovDev wrote:
| I found our childhood film camera last year and I took it
| to a couple trips. price of scanners/getting your film
| scanned and needing to buy 10eur film rolls for like 20
| photos turned me off. I still haven't scanned my first
| and only roll I shot last year.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| I bought a Gralab timer and hooked it up to an old shitty
| enlarger in my tiny dark wine cellar, along with a red
| bulb. A few chemicals and tools and you're golden. The
| only thing that screws me is having to cut up film and
| spool it but I can get more frames out of it that way
| since I use mini spy cameras. Yes the film being
| expensive isn't great but it also makes you choose your
| shots carefully. Get a cheap darkroom film changing tent
| and start there.
| foldr wrote:
| I enjoy film photography in some contexts (I do a bit of
| 4x5), but film photography basically sucks. I think
| possibly a lot of the people who find some kind of magic
| in it are those young enough not to have grown up in the
| era where shooting film was the only option.
|
| I don't mind 4x5 so much because just taking the photo is
| so much effort that the associated ordeal of developing
| and scanning isn't out of proportion. But for 35mm and
| medium format, there's a hugely disproportionate
| investment of time and money for a small number of
| photos.
| etrautmann wrote:
| That's kind of the point though. The scarcity focuses you
| n taking more deliberate and intentional photos.
| foldr wrote:
| It's what some people see as the point now. Back when
| film was the only option, the cost and time per frame
| were just negatives (if you'll excuse the pun). There was
| no romance in deciding whether or not to use one of your
| last three remaining frames; it was just annoying.
|
| I don't deny that for a whole range of reasons, some
| people might take better or more meaningful photos using
| old cameras. Limitations can feed into the artistic
| process. I just think it's a bit silly to romanticize the
| cost and inconvenience of film, or to think that photos
| taken using film are somehow inherently more interesting
| or valuable.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| The parable of the pottery classes that were graded on
| their best work and total volume of work springs to mind.
| I never would've bothered with photography if I didn't
| have the ability to be shameless with burst mode and pick
| the winners later.
| peteforde wrote:
| What you are describing isn't photography.
| dugidugout wrote:
| Curious how 4x5's inconvenience is "proportional" while
| 35mm's is "hugely disproportionate". I'm not familiar
| with the specifics of these formats, but you seem to be
| arbitrarily drawing the line for where the added friction
| is still serving the "magic" I believe is very real if
| not fragile. I think you recognize the value of
| photography isn't solely in the product. I'm curious what
| you personally find in 4x5 that saves you from these
| younger artist's silliness.
| sneak wrote:
| I have a top of the line Sony Alpha (7CR) with a large
| zoom lens (24-70GM or 70-200GM) and I carry it almost
| everywhere, every day. It is absolutely worth the hassle
| to get day to day stuff.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| As they say in the audio world, "there ain't no
| replacement for displacement." I love gigazoom lenses.
| For focal lengths under 100mm, I can use my phone. My SLR
| is my personal spy satellite.
| Tepix wrote:
| Why do you think anyone is entitled to upload photographs
| showing other people to the internet where they are
| completely out of control of what happens next?
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Man you would hate flickr. Also, never said anything
| about that. I don't have any social media, so the photos
| die with me and my friends. It's a nice break from modern
| technology to spend hours on an analog process. If you're
| in a public place you're probably getting photographed so
| I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
| tasuki wrote:
| Let me flip that on you: Why not? How do you decide what
| people are entitled to? Am I entitled to have an opinion
| on the internet?
|
| Where lies the line? Would it be ok to paint a picture
| showing other people and show it to a third person?
| igouy wrote:
| Non-commercial use is sometimes accepted when unlicensed
| commercial use is not.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| Because that's what public space is? We've always held
| that principle, and I don't think 'reach' should affect
| that. If someone takes this to the extreme (i.e. follows
| you around in public, taking thousands of pictures and
| uploading them in real time) they can be charged with
| stalking, harassment, or a similar offence.
|
| To turn it on its head, if you _cannot_ take photographs
| of people in public without their permission, then we
| basically lose the ability to take any photos of public
| space.
| sneak wrote:
| Because we in the global west generally have the right to
| photograph anything we can see in public, save for
| pathological places like Germany or France. You don't own
| your image. If you go into public and I take a photograph
| of you, I hold the copyright on that image, not you. You
| don't have any say in what I do with my (legally
| obtained) image taken in public, nor should you.
| igouy wrote:
| ? "Model Release"
|
| https://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloa
| ds/...
| barrell wrote:
| Can't I just not care that I'm making other people
| uncomfortable and power through? I think for obvious
| reasons that takes away a lot of the enjoyment, both of
| photography and socializing.
|
| YMMV, but every time I've brought out a camera in the last
| 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I
| stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.
| etrautmann wrote:
| Really? I do this often and have never had any issues.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| >YMMV, but every time I've brought out a camera in the
| last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so
| I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing
| it.
|
| Has to be a digital.
| spaqin wrote:
| And yet, they're constantly captured by countless CCTV
| cameras all around, without minding their business. I know
| the pain and don't take as many portraits as I'd like to
| sometimes, even with people close to me; but on few occasions
| that I do sneak in a shot and show them the results later,
| they're surprised in two ways: "when did you take it?!" and
| "that doesn't look half bad!". Maybe because I don't overdo
| it.
|
| Keep up the fight!
| frereubu wrote:
| I've managed to get around that by returning to my Nikon FM2.
| People react quite differently when it's clearly a film
| camera - even better if it's a medium format camera. That
| also gets around the nagging feeling that you're being guided
| in what you're taking by how it will appear online too. I
| don't have any social media accounts aside from HN and a
| BlueSky account that tweets the diary entries of an 18th
| century naturalist so I have no motivation to think about
| that side of things. It's a lovely feeling of my work being
| private because I can't be tempted in the moment to share a
| photo online. It feels much healthier.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| The best is making albums with numbered tissue paper
| silhouettes and the peoples names written on the back with
| a blurb and the date.
|
| >It's a lovely feeling of my work being private because I
| can't be tempted in the moment to share a photo online. It
| feels much healthier.
|
| I find people like it a lot and even give me contact info
| to get the picture I took of them which is cool.
| barrell wrote:
| Heh I've often daydreamed of one day setting up a darkroom
| and buying a couple medium format cameras, I wondered if
| that would be disarming enough (I love medium format and
| TLRs).
|
| Can't do it while I'm renting, but maybe one day!
| etrautmann wrote:
| Go for it anyway! I have a small NYC apt and fit
| everything I need for darkroom development into a small
| crate. I can scan negatives with a small setup here, but
| do have to go to a community darkroom for enlarger
| printing.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Consider doing a hybrid workflow. The equipment for
| developing film is quite compact. I keep all of my film
| development chemicals and equipment stored in a small
| tupperware under the bathroom sink. You can also buy a
| lightproof bag, so you don't even need a light tight room
| to load the film.
|
| The second half of my process is to "scan" my film using
| a macro lens and my DSLR. It takes about 2 hours to go
| from exposed film to developed and scanned film. Only
| about 30 minutes of that time is active, most of it is
| waiting for the film to dry since I don't have a drying a
| cabinet.
| sjw987 wrote:
| That's odd, and to reassure you I would say that I personally
| would rather see somebody with a physical camera. That way I
| know I can avoid the area they're photographing if I don't
| want to be shot or just be aware I'm going to be in a photo
| otherwise. It also makes me (rightly or wrongly) think the
| photo will be uploaded somewhere a bit higher than an
| Instagram / Facebook feed (my wife used to put DSLR photos on
| Instagram and for an image feed website I used to be shocked
| at how poorly images were downscaled, maybe that's changed).
|
| I find something much more pervasive about any upright
| smartphone being a camera at any given time, whether the
| person is being obvious about it or not. A dedicated camera
| is actually more reassuring to me, as its use-cases are
| probably more innocent than a smartphone camera.
|
| Smartphone cameras have given poor photography to the masses.
| I reckon I'm probably in thousands of peoples photos that
| were taken on a whim with a phone. And I've witnessed
| situations where it appears people are trying to stealthily
| take photos of people with phones on public transport and the
| like.
| bambax wrote:
| > _That way I know I can avoid the area they 're
| photographing_
|
| Not with 360 cameras! Which are super fun btw.
| ben_ wrote:
| > for an image feed website I used to be shocked at how
| poorly images were downscaled, maybe that's changed
|
| It has not, still garbage.
| sjw987 wrote:
| I figured as much. Oh well, not like it's primary
| function is an image sharing site :)
| bborud wrote:
| Which can be a blessing in disguise. It makes it less
| attractive to steal images for commercial purposes.
| stavros wrote:
| Instagram isn't for sharing photos, it's for sharing a
| curated, artificial view into your life. Photos are just
| the medium, it's not meant for art.
| spython wrote:
| Absolutely. Running around with a large format camera
| (Graflex) with an Instax back (lomograflok) and making photos
| and immediately giving results back to people changed a lot.
| Strangers were basically lining up to ask about the camera
| and have their photo taken. That was a really fun experience,
| and I noticed how much I missed that excitement - before
| camera phones took over such moments were much more common.
| Now I build/3d print my own large and medium format cameras,
| and that also makes it much more interesting, but the fun of
| instant photography with an ancient looking camera is just
| incredible.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Like a extra-fancy Polaroid?
| spython wrote:
| Like a polaroid shot with an actually good lens. Also the
| whole performative part of making a photograph is of
| course much richer with an old, manual camera.
| tasuki wrote:
| > Everyone, me more than most, doesn't want their picture
| taken, or to be in the background of other photos.
|
| I used to be a little into photography. No one ever protested
| about me taking a picture of them. Just recently I was
| photographing an event and thought: I just come there, take
| photos of everyone, upload them to the internet, and all I
| get is thanks. I haven't asked anyone for permission. Yes I
| was invited by the event organizer, but I'm sure they didn't
| ask permission either.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Normally, somwhere in the long dense legalese they "agree"
| to when spectators buy tickets to the event, is a release
| for photography.
| tasuki wrote:
| This event had no tickets.
| bborud wrote:
| The concept of <<public>> has changed.
|
| About 15-20 years ago I attended a lot of car events (races,
| shows) where I took lots of photos. Mostly of moving cars,
| but also a lot of closeups of race car drivers using a long
| lens. For about a year more than half the photos published in
| a very niche car publication were by me. The magazine had a
| few thousand subscribers. And to this day I still see some
| drivers use my shots of them as profile pictures etc. Nobody
| minded being photographed. In fact, they were really happy
| about it.
|
| Then social media happened. There's a different <<public>>
| now. Any picture taken and published now has the potential to
| go viral. To get a global audience. And not least: to be put
| in unpleasant contexts.
|
| I can understand that people's attitudes have changed.
|
| I haven't actually given up taking photos in public. In part
| because I think it is important that people do. I still take
| pictures of strangers. Then again, I very rarely publish them
| online out of respect for their privacy.
|
| I understand how photos represent something else today. And
| that people view the act of taking a picture differently. But
| if we stop taking pictures, stop exercising our rights to
| take pictures, we will lose them. Through a process of
| erosion.
| lynx97 wrote:
| I find the combination of "pictures of strangers" and "our
| right to take pictures" rather concerning. I have a
| different perspective, as I am blind. But I was always
| uncomfortable with having a picture taken of me by
| basically a stranger. And that feeling didn't just come
| with social media. It always was there. I disagree that you
| have a "right" to take pictures of strangers. IMO, you
| shouldn't have that right. It is probably different
| depending on what juristiction you are in. But my personal
| opinion is, that this attitude is rather selfish. In my
| perfect world, taking pictures of strangers without their
| consent should be illegal.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > But my personal opinion is, that this attitude is
| rather selfish.
|
| Public photography is cultural preservation and
| anthropological ethnography. Asking folks to stop is
| selfish. You are free to have an opinion that differs,
| and your jurisdiction may even forbid public photography,
| but in those places I'm familiar with, street photography
| is as legitimate an art as music played for free on the
| sidewalk. I wouldn't argue against public concerts if I
| were deaf, as it doesn't concern me, because it isn't for
| me, were I unhearing, and the gathering that such public
| displays engender benefits one and all, regardless of
| differences of senses or sensibilities amongst those who
| choose to freely associate.
|
| > In my perfect world, taking pictures of strangers
| without their consent should be illegal.
|
| Capturing an image of another without their consent is a
| bit more nuanced, and I would agree that one is entitled
| to decide how they are portrayed to a degree, but public
| spaces aren't considered private by virtue of them being
| shared and nonexclusive. All the same, though we may
| disagree, you have given me some food for thought. I
| appreciate your unique perspective on this issue, and I
| thank you sincerely for sharing your point of view.
| rkomorn wrote:
| > public spaces aren't considered private by virtue of
| them being shared and nonexclusive
|
| The problem is that "public" 20 years ago (before cell
| phone cameras, photo rolls, social media,
| growth/engagement algorithms, attention economy,
| virality, etc) vs now just doesn't mean the same thing
| anymore.
|
| There's a difference between "no expectation of privacy"
| and "no expectation of having every moment of your life
| in public be liable to be published".
|
| And at that point, the only thing left is the "well if
| you're not doing anything wrong, you don't care if your
| life is published" type of logic, and I don't love that.
|
| I think it's a mistake to cling to a definition of
| "public" that doesn't account for how much things have
| changed.
|
| Edit: and I use "published" as a direct reference to the
| "publish" or "post" buttons on various social media apps.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > I think it's a mistake to cling to a definition of
| "public" that doesn't account for how much things have
| changed.
|
| I think it's a mistake for others in different
| jurisdictions to tell those subject to those norms how
| they ought to live.
|
| The times may have changed, and we didn't start the fire.
| We could put it out if we wanted, or if the lick of the
| flames brought us undue harm. Perhaps most folks just
| don't want to change as much as the times, and that's
| okay. The future is not yet written, and justice is a
| living thing. We can always go a different way if the
| future we arrive upon necessitates it.
|
| I don't mind if we have to change, but I do admire the
| view. The camera can only capture what's inside the
| frame, and it would be a shame to stop living, and the
| greater loss would be to give up on life in pursuit of
| capturing a fleeting moment. I think for many, like me,
| who admire the hobby and have a love of photography as an
| art form, it's akin to capturing lightning in a bottle.
| If it were outlawed or constrained, a true loss to
| society would occur, as that would be a material change
| in living conditions. Others are free to disagree, and I
| wouldn't find fault with them for simply doing so.
|
| When it comes to curtailing my rights to preserve history
| and my place in it, I don't think I'm the one who is
| entitled, but those who would prevent me from freely
| expressing myself through my chosen medium. If you see
| something, you ought be free to say something or remain
| silent. Forestalling my speech is not for you to say.
| Freedom to photograph is a free speech issue, to my view.
| rkomorn wrote:
| Photography is my favorite art form to consume, so I'm
| not in favor of any kind of ban of it.
|
| I also agree that freedom to photograph is a free speech
| issue. I just happen to think the ability to live your
| life without having it being recorded everywhere is also
| a freedom issue.
|
| I think it's a challenge for us to solve and I don't
| pretend to have a solution. I just don't agree with a
| "change nothing" stance on grounds of "no expectation of
| privacy" because I think things have changed to a point
| that it needs to be addressed.
|
| Side note: > I think it's a mistake for others in
| different jurisdictions to tell those subject to those
| norms how they ought to live.
|
| If that's directed at me, then I think you're reading
| something in my comment that I haven't expressed.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| I don't mean to direct anything at anyone, other than my
| viewfinder. I believe in home rule, and not dictates from
| bureaucrats. As a sort of journalist, I'm going to keep
| taking pictures, and to keep writing journals. Anything
| less or different would be to be someone other than
| myself the best and only way I know how, and that isn't
| being true to myself or to others.
|
| If you felt that I directed my comments at you, I
| apologize; I almost certainly wasn't. If anything, I am
| directing them at myself, as an affirmation of what I
| believe and why. Freedom of expression is one of the few
| issues that I will take a principled stance on, and if
| you feel that I was directing my comment at you, I don't
| mean to, though you are free to express whatever you feel
| led to if you feel that I have given you short shrift or
| unalloyed fire, friendly or otherwise.
| bborud wrote:
| Well, there is also the fact that in a lot of cities, you
| will be filmed, often by multiple cameras, most of the
| time, without you being aware of it. By law enforcement,
| security cameras (private and otherwise), cars etc. on
| top of that you carry around a phone that streams
| intimate information about your location, behavior,
| preferences to a bunch of data aggregators.
|
| And then there are the signal surveillance networks that
| are peppered around your environment as your phone shouts
| traceable signals to your surroundings.
|
| (Heck, you can set up a a RPi with a few ESP32s hooked up
| to dump wifi probe frames, cross reference the networks
| phones scan for and create a map of where people come
| from by cross referencing wardriving data. Lots of ISPs
| make it easy by giving people wireless routers with
| unique network names. And from there you can figure out
| things like <<someone living at address X is at location
| Y. People who live at X work for Z and location Y is the
| office of a competitor>>. And that's just by collecting
| one kind of wifi frame and correlating a bunch of
| publicly available information)
|
| Privacy is dead. Someone taking pictures hardly even
| registers.
| rkomorn wrote:
| I agree we're already in a bad place but I don't find the
| "ship has sailed" take particularly engaging.
|
| Addressing nothing because everything can't be addressed
| isn't a great strategy for change.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > Addressing nothing because everything can't be
| addressed isn't a great strategy for change.
|
| Presupposing that some strategies for change are less
| suitable than others is no argument against the status
| quo, either. Sometimes the way things are is just the way
| folks in a given time and place do things, and is simply
| contingent as much as it's worthwhile.
|
| When the going gets tough, the tough get going. If you
| don't like the way things are done here, you either care
| to make a change, including hearts and minds, or you
| don't. If you aren't from here, that might be an uphill
| battle, perhaps even both ways: coming and going.
|
| It's a kind of double standard to judge folks for their
| customs without wanting to do the work to disabuse them
| of their notions, lest they warn you not to let the door
| hit you on your way out, especially after it was opened
| unto you in the first place. Wanting to have it both ways
| is a sort of special pleading.
| bborud wrote:
| I wasn't trying to make a "ship has sailed"-argument, but
| rather the argument that going after photography is odd
| given how little we care about surveillance and data
| collection that is far more invasive, complete and
| dangerous. If this were an optimization problem
| (optimizing for privacy and reducing criminal behavior),
| going after people who take pictures in public wouldn't
| even be on the radar. It isn't even a rounding error.
|
| Sure, I understand that most people are barely aware of
| the insane amounts of data various data brokers
| aggregate, curate and sell of ordinary people's highly
| sensitive data. But most of us are. Or should be. And
| many of us are also part of the problem.
|
| I do think this should be addressed. Especially since it
| is hard to address and it is not going to get any easier.
| In a well functioning legal system, every single one of
| the large data brokers that trade in sensitive personal
| information should be in existential peril. And people
| associated with them should be at very real risk of
| ending up in prison.
|
| It seems ... peculiar to argue about _taking away rights_
| that private citizens have had for more than a century
| and at the same time not do anything about, for instance,
| private parties raiding sensitive government data and
| essentially nobody caring or showing any willingness to
| do anything about it.
|
| You are right in that we do have a "the ship has sailed"
| attitude. But rather than focus on fixing what is most
| important we'd rather risk infringing on the rights of
| private citizens further because that is "being seen as
| doing something".
|
| (I'm not accusing you of thinking this -- I am just
| finishing that line of reasoning to show what absurd
| conclusions this might lead us to)
| rkomorn wrote:
| I don't think we have anything close to diametrically
| opposed views, for the most part.
|
| When it comes to following lines of reasoning to absurd
| conclusions though, in the other direction, don't we end
| up in a world where it is everyone's right (private or
| public for that matter) to surveil everyone at all times
| the moment they step outside?
|
| Isn't that something you have an issue with? An extension
| of the existing problem with data brokers, including ones
| that record data from interactions on their private space
| (eg our access to their products in their stores, etc)?
|
| You're definitely right that there are worse offenders
| out there than "randos taking pictures", but it doesn't
| have to be an either-or thing.
|
| Plus, I'd suspect that almost anyone who thinks it's not
| great that every other person on the street can now
| record them and post it on social media for engagement
| also doesn't like the other bits of tracking and
| surveillance you bring up, so if anything, they are
| probably your overzealous allies.
| rocqua wrote:
| There's legally usually quite a big gap between what
| pictures you can take of people, and how you can publish
| them.
|
| In places where you don't have a reasonable expectation
| of privacy, you can generally be photographed. But there
| are significant limits to how such pictures can be
| published (including social media).
| sbarre wrote:
| The law doesn't matter much if someone is convicted in
| the public square by intentionally misrepresented (or
| even just context-collapsed) images of them going viral
| to a global audience at Internet speed.
|
| By the time the law, or the terms and conditions of
| social networks, catches up, the damage is already done.
| krior wrote:
| > public spaces aren't considered private by virtue of
| them being shared and nonexclusive.
|
| I live in a country where photographing people in public
| is highly restricted. The reason is that 99% of people
| cannot avoid public places in their day-to-day lives,
| therefore public places cannot be a free-for-all.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > therefore public places cannot be a free-for-all.
|
| They can't in those places with the restrictions you are
| familiar with and are subject to, but that is no argument
| against the norms of other places and the denizens
| thereof. I can, and do see public spaces as a free-for-
| all, and that is neither better nor worse, but simply the
| way we do things here.
|
| If you don't like it, it doesn't affect you. Most folks
| are aware, and make a mental note of such things from a
| young age. If we don't like it that way, we have avenues
| to change the way we relate to each other in public by
| changing the laws and regulations that govern public
| photography. That society hasn't reached a consensus on
| this and other issues is fine. Variety is the spice of
| life, and the spice must flow.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Hi!
| aspenmayer wrote:
| Hi!
| lynx97 wrote:
| I find the comparison with deaf people re concerts is
| pretty inappropriate. If you take a picture of me without
| me knowing/my consent, you carry that picture "home" and
| maybe even upload it to some public site. Heck, you could
| even upload it to 4chan and make a ton of fun of me.
| "Look at that stupid disabled guy", or whatever you and
| your friends end up doing. That is a complete different
| game. Disabilities are pretty different from eachother,
| and throwing deaf and blind people into a pot just
| because both are disabled is a very cheap and mindless
| act.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| I didn't make fun of you, though. I'm saying it's not
| your right to complain about things you don't know about
| if you don't suffer harm, even and especially if you come
| to know about them. People make fun of other people for
| reasons or in the absence of them. For you to make a
| logical leap to imply I'm saying it's okay to make fun of
| people, or saying that having a disability is a slight,
| or blameworthy, or deserving scorn or mockery, is to put
| words in my mouth.
|
| I've known deaf people who love going to concerts. They
| perceive the thrumming of the bass and the stomp of the
| crowd. They see the smiles and throw up their hands, and
| deaf folks are able to carry on a conversation by signing
| better than most folks who are hearing, especially when
| the music is turned up to 11.
|
| I'm more concerned with what might happen to assistive
| technologies meant to be used in public by low-vision and
| (legally or fully) blind users if public photography bans
| are passed than I am about any other passing concerns
| about being photographed in public, to be honest.
| lynx97 wrote:
| The "you" in my writing was refering to any photographer
| who takes a picture of me without my consent. I should
| probably mave made that clearer. IOW, I am not suggesting
| that you in particular are making fun of me or anyone you
| photograph. But since we were talking about strangers, I
| have no way of knowing how that photoographer will act.
| Sure, you in particular probably have a morale compass.
| However, in the general case, there is no way for me to
| know if the stranger taking a photo of me is a bad actor
| or not. And therefore, I oppose the "right" for anyone to
| do that, simply because I can never know what they will
| end up doing with that photo.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > And therefore, I oppose the "right" for anyone to do
| that, simply because I can never know what they will end
| up doing with that photo.
|
| Jurisprudence in my country can't preempt legal
| activities because they might lead to wrongdoing in the
| future. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I
| don't know what you think folks are likely to do, but
| there are likely already laws against doing most things
| you would take umbrage with.
|
| There's no need to winnow our _rights_ out of concern for
| your " _mights_."
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Just because it's legal doesn't mean you aren't being a
| rude cunt.
|
| Which are here too.
|
| People can complain about whatever they want. It's
| entirely legal to have an opinion, since you seem so
| preoccupied with laws.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > Just because it's legal doesn't mean you aren't being a
| rude cunt.
|
| I can't top that as a "how do you do," and yet, it's both
| of our birthright to be "a rude cunt" or worse, within
| the bounds of the law.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Excellent response, you made me laugh.
|
| I was getting enduly riled up over anonymous internet
| comments and was going to say something much more
| obnoxious, but not everyone gets Australian humour so I
| figured I'd tone it down.
|
| If I saw you take an unasked photo of our blind friend
| here, I'd let them know so they'd have an opportunity to
| approach you and ask you to deleted it, if they happen to
| feel motivated to do so, and offer to _take care_ of it
| myself ;)
| aspenmayer wrote:
| I've spent some time down under myself, and I would hope
| if you were to ever find me lacking, to the degree that
| you needed to take care of me, that you have the
| foresight to have that moment on camera, because such a
| photograph ought to go _straight to the pool room_.[0]
|
| [0] (For those who haven't seen _The Castle_ (1997), you
| really owe it to the Australians in your life to make an
| appointment with yourself to do so at your earliest
| convenience. Here 's the scene from the film in question
| which originated one of my favorite bits of Aussie slang:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCtMTbKX6_I
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castle_(1997_Australian
| _fi... )
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Sorry, was going to reply but in rate limited in
| replying, probably because I'm a bit of a rude cunt.
|
| ---
|
| I'm in to that! It'd be a photo of me falling flat on my
| face / generally making a fool of myself. Perfect pool
| room photo.
|
| Have a lovely day.
| bborud wrote:
| as a non-militant bicyclist I see this every day. People
| who insist on their right to ride where they are legally
| allowed to while at the same time being a nuisance. Yes,
| you can ride on the sidewalk, but it'd be really nice if
| you didn't. Yes, you can ride in the road, but do you
| really need to? In all cities where I've rode a bicycle,
| a tiny bit of planning and attention can usually result
| in routes that result in minimal opportunities for
| conflict.
|
| You can certainly photograph street scenes without being
| a rude cunt.
| jstimpfle wrote:
| There are people who can "take a picture of you" just by
| looking at you for a second. They have you memorized
| after that.
|
| I believe the usual approach is that in general, if
| you're in a public space, you accept pictures may be
| taken of you. But it depends on the context. If you're a
| bystander in your city while tourists are fotographing
| places of interest for example, and you make it into the
| picture, then that will hardly be a problem in any
| practical legislation. Most legislations probably allow
| for pictures taken of you even without you being asked
| explicitly, as long as certain rights are not violated.
| lynx97 wrote:
| People with photographic memory can't just upload their
| memories to the Internet. So that comparison is pretty
| much worthless.
| volemo wrote:
| Artists with photographic memory can. And in the modern
| world of computational photography and gen AI what even
| is the difference between a photo and drawing?
| v9v wrote:
| The difference is time, effort and scalability. There are
| many things that humans can do that society doesn't
| strictly regulate, because as human activities they are
| done in limited volumes. When it becomes possible to
| automate some of these activities at scale, different
| sorts of risks and consequences may become a part of the
| activity.
| jstimpfle wrote:
| Just taking a photo using a digital device doesn't imply
| uploading it either. I'm sure most jurisdictions clearly
| differentiate between these.
| bborud wrote:
| Well, in many parts of the world it is a legal right. You
| can take pictures of people in public. There are some
| restrictions, and there's of course the question of how
| you go about it, but it is a right.
|
| I can understand people don't like this. Which is why
| actually doing it requires a good deal of sensitivity and
| common sense. But that doesn't mean it would be a good
| idea to outlaw it.
|
| However taking a picture is not the same as publishing
| it. This is the critical point.
|
| The rules for what you can publish tend to be stricter.
| For instance where I live you can't generally publish a
| picture of a person without consent. (It is a bit more
| complicated than that in practice, with lots of
| complicated exceptions that are not always spelled out in
| law. For instance if someone is making a public speech
| they have no expectation of privacy).
|
| As for making it illegal: that comes with far greater
| problems than you might think. From losing the right to
| document abuses of power to robbing people of the freedom
| to take pictures in public.
|
| In fact, years ago a law was passed here making it
| illegal to photograph arrests. A well intentioned law
| meant to protect suspects who have not been convicted of
| anything. However it has never been enacted because it
| was deemed dangerous. It would have made it illegal to
| document police misconduct, for instance. And since the
| press here is generally very disciplined about not
| publishing photos of the majority of suspects, it didn't
| actually solve a problem. (In Norway identities are
| usually withheld in the press until someone is convicted.
| But sometimes identities are already known to the public.
| For instance in high profile cases. This, of course,
| varies by country)
| volemo wrote:
| While I agree with you that _publishing_ a picture of a
| person without their consent ought to be illegal, I as an
| individual with very unreliable memory and one who's
| always doubting my perception of reality, I heavily rely
| on modern technology and strongly believe that personal
| recording of any kind is my right, it being simple
| augmentation of my senses that allows me to live happier
| and more fulfilled life.
| exasperaited wrote:
| It should not be illegal. It should be ethical.
|
| The GDPR provides a pretty good framework for media
| organisations and journalists to shoot people without
| consent.
| bornfreddy wrote:
| What is "publishing"? Is posting on FB also publishing?
| buellerbueller wrote:
| yes
| cardanome wrote:
| I find it strange how people consider taking pictures of
| strangers as some basic right.
|
| Here in Germany, people have a right to their own image.
| You can't just photograph strangers. You can photograph a
| crowd at a public event but you can't zoom in on one
| specific stranger. Also you can photograph people that
| are of public interest.
|
| Maybe it is me who is biased but I find these rules quite
| reasonable. It protects both my privacy while allowing
| photographers to do their job. If you want to photograph
| a stranger, ask for consent.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Maybe it is me who is biased_
|
| Sure, and so am I. We're all biased toward what we are
| used to, especially if it's something we grew up with
| through childhood.
|
| While I think it'd be creepy for someone to sit outside,
| zooming in on strangers and taking photos of them, I
| don't think that sort of thing should be illegal. (Aside
| from when it might break other laws, like if it were to
| turn into harassment.) I do think it we should require
| consent before _publishing_ a photo that focuses on
| individuals, at least for most uses (I 'm sure there are
| exceptions).
|
| I don't think laws should try to spell out or enforce
| social norms (for the most part; again I'm sure there are
| exceptions I'd consider), and I think "don't be a creep
| with a camera" is a social norm, not a legal issue.
|
| > _It protects [...] my privacy_
|
| I just don't see getting photographed in public as a
| privacy issue, but I'll admit it depends on the "how".
| Dragnet surveillance with cameras on every corner _is_ a
| privacy issue, but a single photographer with a manually-
| actuated camera is not.
|
| But really, what is it about someone having a photograph
| of you while you're in public that violates your privacy?
| It may "feel icky", but I don't see that as being a
| violation of anyone's rights. (Again, _publishing_ a
| photo is IMO another matter.)
|
| At the risk of diving into whataboutism, it seems weird
| to me to object to public photography -- something that
| has many legitimate artistic and historical uses and
| benefits -- when many of us are subjected to pervasive
| surveillance, both of the governmental and capitalist
| kind.
| cardanome wrote:
| > Again, publishing a photo is IMO another matter.
|
| With analog photography this might be a useful
| distinction but with digital it is easy to leak that
| photo even without explicit intention to do so.
|
| Even if the intention was to never share my photo, it is
| likely to be automatically uploaded to Google Cloud or
| similar services. It can be hacked, it will end up as
| training data for some LLM and so on. It is more
| practical to stop the taking of the photo in the first
| place.
|
| > it seems weird to me to object to public photography
|
| No one does. Lots of people practice public photography
| in Germany. You just have to ask for consent if you want
| to photograph strangers.
|
| That is the point where I am lost an why this is even
| such a big deal for you. You can photograph the
| environment, you can photograph your friends, you can
| photograph anyone who wants to be photographed. Why would
| you even want to photograph someone why doesn't want
| their photo taken? Why not take a photo of the many
| people that would love to have their picture taken?
|
| > when many of us are subjected to pervasive
| surveillance, both of the governmental and capitalist
| kind.
|
| Germany has also much better laws in that regard as well.
| Sure it could be better enforced but the GDPR is super
| strong.
|
| As for surveillance, this is also more restricted here as
| well. There is definitely a push to make widespread
| surveillance more a thing but we are still far away from
| US levels.
|
| So yeah, both is bad.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| I'm not sure I agree that consent should be a requirement
| for photographing people in public. You have a right to
| observe people in public. You have a right to take notes
| about these people and publish them. You have a right to
| hire a person to sit in a public place and record their
| observations, and to publish these to your heart's
| content.
|
| Technologically augmenting these rights does not change
| them. A pen and paper to record observations is a
| technological augmentation to memory and recall. A
| newspaper is an augmentation to a gossip corner. A camera
| is just the same. A person should be able to record and
| retransmit any information they come across in public,
| regardless of technology, since ownership of an
| observation is fundamentally the observer's.
| cardanome wrote:
| > You have a right to observe people in public. You have
| a right to take notes about these people and publish
| them.
|
| Not completely. If you keep staring at me, following me
| around and taking notes I am going to call the police
| even if you keep to public spaces.
|
| While it is not illegal to stare at people I would
| strongly advice you to not do so. You will find that some
| people will react quite badly to it.
|
| > You have a right to hire a person to sit in a public
| place and record their observations, and to publish these
| to your heart's content.
|
| No, you can't. They can write about the people they saw
| in general terms but once you publish information that
| directly identifies me and contains personal information
| about me, I am gonna sue you. Might vary depending on
| country though.
|
| People are making such high level philosophical argument
| about why they should be allowed to photograph strangers
| but no one answers why. It is hard for me to come up with
| any non malicious reason. Sure, maybe you just like
| photography but then again photograph people that consent
| to it.
|
| Not to mention even if you legally can, I doubt that
| running around photographing strangers will gain you any
| positive reputation. In practice you are well advised to
| ask for consent anyway.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| > _You will find that some people will react quite badly
| to it_
|
| It's a good thing we have laws, courts, and prisons for
| people who can't control themselves.
|
| > _once you publish information that directly identifies
| me and contains personal information about me, I am gonna
| sue you_
|
| For what? What right of yours have I violated by
| retransmitting publicly available information about you?
| Presumably this right of yours would also be infringed if
| I gossiped about you? I agree it's not a polite thing to
| do, but rights only count when they protect contentious
| actions.
|
| > _It is hard for me to come up with any non malicious
| reason_
|
| Free people don't need to justify their actions. Your
| country may infringe on your rights, but that doesn't
| invalidate the assertion they exist. Freedom of speech
| and the consequential freedom of the press are
| fundamental to a free society. Having to justify yourself
| when you're not harming anyone is tyrannical.
| torginus wrote:
| This gave me an idea - what if we made a stable diffusion
| based AI that would replace unimportant faces (and possibly
| other identifying details) with different ones - I have
| seen that AI can do this and make the change unnoticeable.
|
| That way people would be safe from having their personal
| likeness and whereabouts accidentally plastered over the
| internet (except when they want their photo to be taken),
| and the end result wouldn't look so obviously modified as
| blurring faces or licence plates.
| vwcx wrote:
| That's a solution that prioritizes privacy over reality,
| and I'm not sure we collectively want that. Mutilation of
| truth in the name of protection etc...
| torginus wrote:
| Yes that's a tradeoff - but I was thinking it would still
| be better than stuff like Google street view's mess of
| blurs.
| WD-42 wrote:
| Is it better? At least you know it's a real face under
| the blur.
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't think that's better. For something like Street
| View that's explicitly supposed to be capturing reality,
| I want to know when that reality has been censored.
| Realistic face replacement breaks that.
|
| (And yes, I'm sure Street View imagery is edited in other
| ways before it makes it to production, but I think it's
| important that our view of reality remains as real as
| possible.)
| nameless912 wrote:
| Ah yes, because more AI will solve this problem.
|
| No, what we need is for people to feel safe in public
| again, for them to not feel like they're constantly one
| questionable picture away from their lives being ruined.
| Kill social media, kill gigantic public face tracking
| dragnets, kill privacy-invading capitalism.
| perplex3d wrote:
| I'm with you. The dichotomy between public and private
| needs to change. I should still have a degree of privacy
| even when I'm out in public. What has changed is the
| ability of others to "see" everyone everywhere at every
| moment with less and less friction, whether through
| pictures or videos shared on social media, facial
| recognition cameras, or location trackers like license
| plate readers. Historically, no one has had this ability,
| and now we don't even know the degree of that ability
| that some have.
| I_dream_of_Geni wrote:
| Maybe this comes to mind? : "Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and
| chief people officer Kristin Cabot, who were caught on a
| Coldplay concert jumbotron hugging each other and then
| quickly recoiling when they realized they were on camera."
|
| They obviously didn't ask for that, and it was focused on
| them without their permission, and yet, here we are....
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| > They obviously didn't ask for that, and it was focused
| on them without their permission, and yet, here we
| are....
|
| The rule is: if you're in public you have no expectation
| of privacy.
|
| I think a debate on that rule would be interesting. My
| thought is that if I can't take a picture unless there's
| absolutely nobody else in the FOV, then that basically
| prohibits the vast majority of photographs.
| rstuart4133 wrote:
| I also am a fan of the "expectation of privacy" rule.
|
| That's primarily because it makes it absolutely clear the
| public always has the right to record officials doing
| their job. So if you see a policeman murdering George
| Floyd in the street, or fellow shopper pushing an old
| woman out of the way, or a parent screaming abuse at an
| umpire, or even just someone littering in a national park
| there is no doubt you are allowed to record it.
|
| Yes, this means towards more surveillance, but it's a
| counter balance to the surveillance state. The state and
| large corporations put cameras everywhere. It seems odd
| to me that people get really upset by taking photos of
| them when there are likely numerous CCTV cameras already
| doing that 24 hours a day, in not so public places like
| offices. The "anyone can take photos in a public place"
| rule means Joe Citizen gets the same rights as the
| corporations and governments take for themselves.
|
| I'm in the minority though. The best illustration I've
| seen of the was a man take a photo of the cheer leaders
| at a big football game. He leaned over the fence and put
| his camera on the ground, taking the photo as the girl
| kicked her leg into the air. His actions where caught on
| the TV camera that was broadcasting that same girls
| crouch around the nation. The police prosecuted him
| because of the huge outcry. I'm can't recall what the
| outcome in court was, but I couldn't see how he could be
| breaking the photography rules given my country has the
| "expectation of privacy" rule.
| assimpleaspossi wrote:
| People feel like there's some man in a dark room somewhere
| looking at each and every image posted everywhere with evil
| intent.
| barrell wrote:
| Not really. I think people rightfully feel that there are
| algorithms online trying to identify every person and every
| relation and store every bit of information about everyone.
| They feel that everything now is so permanent and public,
| that if you're not at your best you're at your worst, that
| that moment will be immortalized, and that you have no
| control after the picture is taken so it's better to avoid
| it from the get go.
| assimpleaspossi wrote:
| People feel like there's some man in a dark room somewhere
| looking at each and every image posted everywhere with evil
| intent.
|
| A friend of mine delivers for Amazon. They have to take
| pictures of every package delivered. Sometimes the customer
| is there when they arrive and he asks them to hold the
| package for him while he takes the photo of the package.
|
| Most of them turn away or hold the package far away so they
| aren't in the image. Some will pose with the package in some
| amusing way.
| tpxl wrote:
| > People feel like there's some man in a dark room
| somewhere looking at each and every image posted everywhere
| with evil intent.
|
| Yeah when there's precedent for people doing exactly that
| the feeling is justified. How many times have we heard of
| [facebook employees/police/...] abusing their powers to
| stalk their [exes/wives/love interests/'enemies'/...]. With
| the amount of face detection and cataloguing being done
| today, it's never been easier on a technical level. The
| only protection we have is 'trust us we aren't doing it
| bro', which doesn't get you very far.
| assimpleaspossi wrote:
| In today's world, you can find one of anything. In the
| normal everyday world, no one is bothered.
| I_dream_of_Geni wrote:
| This is exactly the point: "one of anything".
|
| People use that "one thing" and make a giant case out of
| it, sometimes affecting millions of people. I have two
| (of hundreds of) examples: 1) the Tylenol poisonings in
| 1982 Chicago, had Johnson & Johnson recall 31 million
| bottles of Tylenol, and arguably affected billions of
| people (with all the tamperproof packaging that resulted
| worldwide). This was a good thing. But one crazy man
| poisoning a few bottles of Tylenol at one grocery store
| affected many people.
|
| 2) The next example is somewhat personal, but at Boeing
| back around 1987 or so, one tech in our engineering group
| was on the production floor, and a huge steel roller cart
| with a tool on it, weighing probably 1000 lbs, ran over
| his toes. From that single incident (even though 1000's
| of workers and 1000's of heavy carts were being used
| daily for dozens of years), came an edict that ALL
| employees on or near these facilities had to mandatorily
| wear huge plastic toe-caps over their shoes if they
| didn't have steel-toed shoes on. This meant that even
| secretaries in nearby offices would have to wear these
| clunky caps all day, over their shoes even though they
| never entered the production facilities. One person's
| action affecting 50,000 nearby employees. This is a bad
| thing. (because of the huge over-reaction).
|
| So, these maybe don't fit the perfect example we are
| discussing, but it shows how we can come to different
| conclusions based on different inputs: "you can find one
| of anything to use in an argument".
| exasperaited wrote:
| The contemporary "ick" about street photography is the ick of
| non-consensual capture. Everyone feels it to some degree; I
| stopped doing street photography work and even most social
| photography (including paid work) because I felt it and I
| wasn't ready to navigate those feelings.
|
| This "ick" is real and it's good that you feel it, because
| you can build on it for a sense of ethics about photos and
| the use of the camera, about how its gaze affects subjects,
| about how to reduce that impact.
|
| A solution for you is to focus on photography with people
| posing for photos who want the photos, or people posing for
| photos who want money. Try art nude, even: it is fascinating,
| liberating, has a very strong historical and creative through
| line, and will teach you a lot.
|
| I have developed a much stronger sense of the ethics around
| my photography and a little more personal confidence, so I
| might yet give street photography a go again in future, if I
| think I have something specific to say.
| angelgonzales wrote:
| About a decade ago some guy thought I was taking a picture
| of him and his girlfriend, they were very uninteresting
| subjects and I didn't take any pictures of them but he
| followed me and sucker punched me. He was caught quickly
| and I pressed charges and since he had priors he didn't
| make bail and was sentenced to 2 years in prison which I
| don't think was enough because even a soft punch could kill
| someone. After that I began carrying non-lethal and lethal
| tools for self defense and stopped worrying about hurting
| people's feelings when I take pictures. If people tell me
| off I tell them off because ultimately our conflict is
| based off of differing arbitrary opinions. I concluded that
| art is a human right and I should never feel guilty or bad
| about making it. Art is noble and it's a high pleasure and
| part of being human. I have a short time in this life to
| create art so I should just do what I feel is pure and what
| I want. I've also concluded that if I did what everyone
| told me to do (or what they told me not to do) I'd be
| eating ten pounds of spinach a day, waking up a 5 AM,
| drinking a gallon of milk a day, buying timeshares and
| joining the Marines! Obviously I wouldn't be doing what I
| want, my point is that artists need to listen to their
| inner voice and follow wherever that takes them.
| sneak wrote:
| This is a you thing. Most people have no issue whatsoever
| with their faces appearing on social media. They "have
| nothing to hide".
| rdiddly wrote:
| The quantities are what changed. Taking a photo used to be
| relatively difficult and rare, so it was mainly reserved for
| relatively meaningful subjects. Which meant that having your
| picture taken was also relatively rare, and was something of
| a validation that you were interesting enough to merit being
| photographed. For that photograph to be published, even more
| so. Now cameras are plentiful and cheap, "publishing"
| opportunities are plentiful and cheap, and being photographed
| is commonplace and not appreciated as much. You can read all
| the meanings into my choice of the word cheap, by the way -
| as a price (increased supply made the price go down) or as a
| value (there's an abundance, so it becomes meaningless), or
| even as an implication about quality (low stakes means not as
| much attention or care for composing a shot).
| starky wrote:
| Really? I don't go out and photograph near as much as I used
| to, but nobody has ever reacted with anything other than
| interest at what I'm doing. I was recently traveling to a
| couple cities I had last been to 5-10 years ago and was
| shocked at how packed places were with people getting their
| photos taken, I have photos that would be impossible to take
| again because there would be people in the way.
| foxglacier wrote:
| People absolutely care that photos are real. There was somebody
| on here recently who had to read the photographer's story of
| how he planned it all to be comfortable it was real. Especially
| for those bird-in-front-of-sun type photos.
| quietfox wrote:
| I really need to get back to that mindset. I keep catching
| myself unconsciously checking my hobbies and abilities for
| marketability. I've been playing guitar for almost three
| decades, one of them spent in a touring metal band. When I
| started, I used to enjoy making music so much that I played and
| composed so often an album would just come together naturally.
| And then another one and another one, I just couldn't stop.
| These days, I no longer sit down to play just for myself and
| the moment -- instead, I catch myself thinking, "Can I sell
| sample packs from this? Record a course? Should I code a VST
| plugin for it and sell that?" And after weeks of moments like
| this, all I have are three random riffs and frustration.
| BrokenCogs wrote:
| Which band, may I ask?
| pards wrote:
| I try to look at my music as something that I do because I
| enjoy it. I play in a casual/amateur band and I regularly
| have to remind the guys that I do it for no other reason than
| because I enjoy it; I'm not interested in playing gigs. Not
| everyone sees it the same way.
|
| I know a few musicians that tried to make a living out of
| music similar to your story. Most have now stopped making
| music and are both frustrated with the music industry, and
| angry at listeners for not valuing their work.
| oxalorg wrote:
| I have clicked about ~20,000 photographs on a Sony camera in
| the last year and a half. And I have published exactly 0 of
| those photos on social media.
|
| Whenever I meet my friends and family, I show them the pictures
| myself and the story behind them.
|
| I love the thrill of street photography and it gives me immense
| pleasure to capture candid moments of humans. It's a great
| creative outlet for me and helps me think about life and
| philosophy through my pictures.
|
| Maybe one day I will care enough about publishing these
| pictures, maybe one day I will care about AI. But right now, I
| don't. This is the closest I've been to my "kid"-like self,
| just enjoying something for the heck for it.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| The pictures go with a story, that's the interesting part.
| LandR wrote:
| As someone who would love to get into street photography, and
| has an old NIkdon D7100, what would you recommend is a good
| lense (not model, but focal length, zoom, etc) for street
| photography ?
| bentcorner wrote:
| It all depends on what you want to do. If you want to get
| started cheaply the kit lens is more than enough.
|
| Prime lenses will have larger apertures that can give you
| more creative options.
|
| How close do you want to stand? Indoor/outdoors? What are
| you planning on taking pictures of? D7100 is APS-C, I find
| that 50mm (~75mm ff) on APS-C doesn't give you quite enough
| room indoors to take photos. So you might want a 35mm prime
| or a zoom that goes down there. If you're planning on
| taking portraits you don't want something too wide (~20mm
| and below can be good for real estate/architecture) because
| it makes people look weird.
|
| Most everything else is dictated by how much you want to
| spend and how large/heavy you want your camera to be.
|
| Personally I have a 35mm f1.8 on my camera and am happy
| with it, I use it for family outings, a lot of portrait-
| level shots and just general "hey we're at the museum" kind
| of photos.
| jonah wrote:
| I have a D7100 as well and a 35mm 1.8 and 20mm. Both are
| great. 35mm on APA-C is about 50mm on full frame and is
| the "natural" view. Generally too narrow for landscapes
| and streetscapes, the 20mm starts to be good for those.
| k3nx wrote:
| You should try to rent a lens to see what works for you. I
| used lensrentals.com just to try out the 85/1.4 that
| "everyone" said was awesome. I loved it, but couldn't
| justify the price for a hobby, so I settled on the 85/1.8.
| I bought it years ago (4+) and I think I've taken less than
| 20 pictures with it. My "nifty 50" is still a favorite
| 50/1.8, but I also love the 70-300/4.5-5.6. Those two are
| my most used, and both were less than $600 US total.
| ludicrousdispla wrote:
| This might have immediate application in certain business
| sectors, such as real estate and insurance.
| Theodores wrote:
| Yes but it is a hard sell, arguably too hard, and the product
| pitch, which is away from these applications, is the right
| one. They are not promising to be 'blockchain two' with
| hypothetical business use cases.
|
| Imagine going to the solicitors with lots of documents that
| they need copies of. If they are making scans themselves then
| that is all the proof they need. If an assistant has copied
| that important certificate, then that copy is all that is
| needed for normal legal services. The Roc Camera would not be
| helpful in this regard, even if it had some magic means of
| scanning A4 pages.
|
| In a serious solicitor interaction there will be forms that
| need to be signed and witnessed. These important documents
| then need to go in the post. In theory, the client could just
| whip out their Roc Camera and... But who is going to buy a
| Roc Camera when a stamp will do the job?
|
| Maybe you might if you have a lot of photos to take for
| 'evidence', for example, of the condition of a house before
| work is done, or after it is done. However, nobody is asking
| for this so there is no compulsion to get the Roc Camera when
| the camera on your phone suffices for the needs of the real
| world.
| ludicrousdispla wrote:
| I agree with your points, but your argument is so rational
| and well supported that I believe the opposite is likely to
| happen. Does that make me a pessimist or an optimist?
| patates wrote:
| > I was seeking the external gratification of getting likes
| just like everyone else.
|
| "You will be happy to look okay. You will be happy to turn
| heads. You will be happy with smoother skin. You will be happy
| with a flat stomach. You will be happy with a six-pack. You
| will be happy with an eight-pack. You will be happy when every
| photo of yourself gets 10,000 likes on Instagram. You will be
| happy when you have transcended earthly woes. You will be happy
| when you are at one with the universe. You will be happy when
| you are the universe. You will be happy when you are a god. You
| will be happy when you are the god to rule all gods. You will
| be happy when you are Zeus. In the clouds above Mount Olympus,
| commanding the sky. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe."
|
| -- Matt Haig, Notes on a Nervous Planet , Shortened version of
| the many-paragraphs-long quote found on:
| https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10913632-you-will-be-happy-...
| maurits wrote:
| I'm cynical and don't fear a world in which people can't verify
| photos for their authenticity.
|
| I fear (channeling a brave new world) that they simply will not
| care.
| bambax wrote:
| Agreed. This product seems pointless because nobody's
| interested in a proof of authenticity (except maybe in certain
| legal niches?)
|
| I take pics for me and my friends and family, and AI has almost
| zero impact on this (although, face swaping is lots of fun, and
| everyone understands it's fake and a joke).
|
| Edit: also, and more importantly, the question of authenticity
| is moot. The point of art in general is to say something / make
| a statement, and certainly not to produce a faithful
| representation of the world. Anything that's not an exact copy
| (which is hard to do if you're not God), has a point of view,
| which gives it value.
| clifdweller wrote:
| The idea isn't a bad one in some cases like travel
| photography. Between background people removal and lightroom
| a good chunk of travel pictures are not a good representation
| of what you can expect. on Instagram there are plenty of
| pictures of people standing alone in front of the Eifel tower
| or at inari gates in afternoon lighting that is unrealistic
| outside the pandemic or a 6am shot. Or take cherry blossom
| viewing in tokyo. More trees are white or very light pink but
| you would not know that looking at what people post often the
| camera auto balancing to make them more pink because if it
| doesn't people think there is a problem with the camera; that
| incentivizes sony, canon etc to build that in.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Taking pics and videos of events with political ramifications
| and being able to show that it isn't AI generated or tampered
| with has HUGE utility, not the least of which by reporters
| and restablishing trust with disaffected.
| huimang wrote:
| > Nobody has ever walked past a photograph because they can't
| inspect its digital authenticity hash
|
| That the average person hasn't thought about this doesn't mean
| it couldn't become a thing in the future. People do value
| authenticity and genuine things, though I agree the particulars
| aren't relevant in a lot of cases.
|
| This is a (very expensive!) toy camera, but I could see
| traditional camera companies like Fujifilm, Canon, etc,
| incorporating this tech later down the line.
| kybernetyk wrote:
| How did you get out of your photography obsession? Because
| currently I'm really really into photography as well and it
| gets unhealthy. (Both time and money wise).
| kristo wrote:
| I'm not sure this is targeting you, but possibly rather
| journalistic photos where being able to prove authenticity is
| important
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Commoditization is a good way to phrase it; first with
| affordable digital cameras, then with smartphones, photos have
| become more content than art. With smart filters and digital
| enhancement, mistakes and imperfect conditions have been fixed.
|
| AI won't replace that, just creates an alternative way to
| generate content without needing to be physically present
| somewhere.
| fidotron wrote:
| > Nobody has ever walked past a photograph because they can't
| inspect its digital authenticity hash
|
| Nit, but there are reasons Canon and Nikon will sell you
| cameras that sign the pictures with their keys already. Even if
| they have been shown insecure in specific implementations the
| market is very much there.
|
| Ten years ago in the NYC art market this was also true in a
| niche but very real audience. I think the NFT wave burnt that
| out completely.
| Jean-Papoulos wrote:
| >Nobody has ever walked past a photograph because they can't
| inspect its digital authenticity hash.
|
| Some will once AI is ubiquitous. Especially of the art &
| entertainment sectors
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| The words 'external gratification' popped out. I only recently
| found out that my sensitivity to it is the biggest
| flaw/weakness in my and many other's personality.
| divan wrote:
| I've been (really, really) into photography since I was six,
| and I'm still (really, really) at it three decades later. I
| never felt much appeal toward photography as an art form - it's
| always been a way to capture moments and share them with people
| I care about.
|
| These days I play with both AI photography and "normal"
| photography. My main camera is the A9 III with a global shutter
| - a machine gun that fires 120fps RAW files. I shoot a lot of
| sports, and the people I photograph are thrilled to get such
| high-quality shots of moments that mattered to them. It doesn't
| really matter how much cultural value society attaches to
| photos - those captured moments will always be meaningful to
| them, and they feel joy when they see them. That's the whole
| point of photography for me.
|
| AI photography is a bit different. I take 15-20 photos of a
| friend's face with my camera, train a LoRA model to use with
| Flux1.dev, and upload it to network storage on RunPod. Then I
| spin up a serverless worker on an H100 that runs the ComfyUI
| API, and use my own Flutter-based frontend to play with prompts
| and generate new photos of that person. I can make far better
| headshots this way than in a real studio. For some friends,
| it's even been a therapeutic experience - seeing so many high-
| quality images of themselves looking confident, happy, and
| fully alive helped them feel that way, even if just for a
| moment. One friend told me, "You did more with these AI photos
| of me than therapy did in the past year."
| LaGrange wrote:
| Wow that's bleak. "Look at that fake photo of you but
| better."
| divan wrote:
| That's actually working technique in sports psychology -
| one version of it called VSM (Video Self-Modelling), where
| edited video shows athlete performing correct/advanced
| technique. It tricks brain to belive in "future self". I'm
| not surprised it works with photos that well, but I think
| it's not studied yet. These AI photos I make a very
| different from, say, photoshopped faced. I tried it on
| myself too, and can confirm that it does have psychological
| effect.
| LaGrange wrote:
| Anything has an "psychological effect," and tricking a
| person into thinking any old junk is "better than
| therapy" is trivial - look at all the people who spend
| time and money on AI chatbots. It's also pretty clear
| it's not actually _good for them_.
|
| And there's zero surprise here it would be used to
| manipulate potential athletes.
| igouy wrote:
| Fascinating!
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| >Nobody has ever walked past a photograph because they can't
| inspect its digital authenticity hash.
|
| This has rapidly changed over the last few months. As more and
| more pictures/videos going viral on social media are AI-
| generated [0, 1], real pictures/videos of remarkable things are
| increasingly falsely called out as AI-generated [2]. People are
| definitely starting to care, and while the toy camera in the
| linked article is merely an artistic statement, having some
| ubiquitously standardized way of unambiguously validating
| content generated by a real recording device is going to become
| paramount.
|
| [0] https://www.today.com/news/bunnies-jumping-trampoline-
| viral-...
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O-8kAnBL2s
|
| [2]
| https://old.reddit.com/r/skiing/comments/1oeda67/my_highligh...
| cassepipe wrote:
| Photography is when the image is not moving right ?
| wvlia5 wrote:
| This is not about photographers.
|
| Imagine the president wants to deliver a video message. Was it
| authentic or AI generated? If it was filmed with this camera,
| the population can verify.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Yes. I am surprised by off the rails this conversation went.
| It's not about art. It's about verifiable evidence in these
| crazy times.
| wvlia5 wrote:
| Yeah, 1st he misunderstands the product and then he
| believes he is qualified to valuate it negatively (due to
| him being a great photographer ): "this misses the mark on
| every front I can think of"
| toobulkeh wrote:
| Maybe it's not for common use? I could see this betting
| important in the intelligence community, for example.
| Kiboneu wrote:
| I am still really (really really) into photography! Nothing has
| changed that, the pictures are just as beautiful as they always
| were. My friends are touched when they see pictures of
| themselves spending time together. There is still plenty of
| things to see and take pictures of, and not enough time to
| worry about whether someone will appreciate my "work".
|
| You can definitely get back into it. Just have fun, don't do it
| for anyone (that goes with any art).
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| That's not the point. The point is trying to make a device that
| can help capture evidence of events that can be verified as not
| AI generated.
| mfer wrote:
| I don't think about this as much for professional or amateur
| photography.
|
| I think of verifiable images as something for legal purposes.
| So much is easily made up with AI. Having verifiable real
| photos (and eventually video) can be a benefit for things like
| legal proceedings.
| scottlamb wrote:
| > I think of verifiable images as something for legal
| purposes.
|
| That makes sense to me, but who is this particular $399
| camera made for? Can you imagine someone choosing it for a
| photo they intend to be used in legal proceedings? The specs
| and appearance do not scream high-quality professional tool
| to me. The price is lower than a professional would be
| willing to spend (on something high-quality), higher than
| someone would drop on a whim.
|
| It looks kinda like a designer's school assignment that
| they're trying to sell.
| elil17 wrote:
| I view this as something that could be more useful in a
| journalistic, legal, or governmental context rather than in a
| creative or artistic one.
| wiether wrote:
| I read your comment this morning and it resonated with me.
|
| A few hours later, YouTube suggested me this video: Psychology
| of People Who Don't Post their Photos on Social Media
|
| Not some big revelations, but an interesting perspective
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGx_cmEH8Lw
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| On the other hand, if taking a picture on a Canon dSLR
| instantly uploaded it to Apple Photos the same way your iPhone
| does, when you're outside, that would be a really popular
| product.
| cush wrote:
| I think this kind of tech is designed for journalists and
| professionals, not enthusiasts and social media folk
| lgleason wrote:
| Back before digital became really high res I was into small,
| medium and large format silver halide cameras balancing cost
| with high quality optics. You could get Exackta's, Speed
| Graphics and Roleiflexes relatively inexpensively and take
| amazing high quality photos with them.
|
| The larger you went though, the more you had to be mindful
| about the cost of eash shot both in terms of time and cost for
| film and developing. There is something to be said about the
| curation that happened when taking photos like that. You put a
| lot more though upfront into composition and had to think about
| your shutter speed, aperture etc..
|
| One thing I learned about during that time was how the old time
| press photographers would use a Speed Graphic on 4x5 negative,
| grab a wide angled shot and then crop it. Also, press
| conferences used to create a lot of broken glass as
| photographers would snap a shot, shoot out the one time use
| flash bulb on the ground and then quickly put in another bulb
| to get another shot.
| angelgonzales wrote:
| Yep, I make many pictures but don't feel like I need to share
| them with others. Sometimes I show my girlfriend and sometimes
| I frame them or put them on my fridge. I actually don't really
| want to show strangers my work because I make photographs for
| myself and I'm not looking for critique because I'm developing
| my own style and exploring what interests me. I don't need to
| prove my photographs are authentic because I know I took them!
| wvlia5 wrote:
| > this misses the mark on every front I can think of.
|
| YOU are missing the mark on every front I can think of.
| dcchambers wrote:
| The value here is not in a product used to make art.
|
| The value is for documenting history and being able to *prove*
| something happened (eg for lawsuits, criminal cases, security,
| etc).
| marssaxman wrote:
| Funny you mention the C330. I have not done any photography in
| well over a decade, and long ago sold all my gear, but just a
| week ago decided to take my grandfather's old Rolleicord in for
| cleaning & service. I am looking forward to shooting with it
| again, just for the sake of practicing the art. I might even
| learn to develop my own film this time around!
| prmoustache wrote:
| If you are taking the photo yourself, you know where they come
| from. While would you need signed pictures to prove that?
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Oh no! You've discovered that the product is completely
| pointless! If only they had asked you first!
| injidup wrote:
| When rocking your Meta, Ray Ban, MacDonalds, Tesla XR AR
| 0009fNG plus Reality engine contact lense inplants it will be
| important to cross reference your experiences with what really
| happened.
| sciencejerk wrote:
| Yep this is coming soon. You'll be required to own and
| operate wearables to participate in the social web, or post
| photos anywhere.
| rendaw wrote:
| Instagram could have a "real" filter that only shows you photos
| with proofs, for instance. So not your own photos, but other
| people's photos.
| matt_daemon wrote:
| Why do websites like this always try to be too clever? Let me
| scroll!
| broguinn wrote:
| +1. To all of the marketing site developers out there: never
| mess with scrolling defaults.
| noduerme wrote:
| It's wild that it's already come to this: The camera itself
| becomes more important as the instrument to provide zero-trust
| proof.
|
| This is a brilliant solution to one of the most critical emergent
| problems. I can see a world where no digital image can be trusted
| if it _doesn 't_ come with a hash.
|
| There is also something called "film" which might be a retro
| answer to this problem.
| xg15 wrote:
| Until people start to make AI images, print them out and then
| make a "real" photo of the printout to get the hash.
| noduerme wrote:
| I think there would be ways to detect that from the final
| image. Also if the hash contains date/time/location info.
| colordrops wrote:
| I predicted something similar a while back:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31092225
| m00x wrote:
| and it has existed for a while already
| colordrops wrote:
| Could you share some examples?
| asimpleusecase wrote:
| Kinda interesting- of course until it hacked. But honestly it
| does not look like something I would want to carry around.
| m00x wrote:
| The Pi4 is extremely overpowered for this application. This looks
| like a rushed product from an SF brainfart with no engineering
| behind it.
| dusted wrote:
| I don't understand how the "proof" part works, like, what part of
| the input to the "proof generation" algorithm is so inherently
| tied to the real world that one cannot feed it "fake" data ?
| whatsupdog wrote:
| I would also love to know this. Where can I read how it works?
| ConorSheehan1 wrote:
| My understanding is it can't. The proof is "this photo was
| taken with this real camera and is unmodified". There's no way
| to know if the photo subject is another image generated by AI,
| or a painting made by a human etc.
| _carbyau_ wrote:
| ^^This so much.
|
| I remember when snapchat were touting "send picture that
| delete within timeframes set by you!" and all that would
| happen is you'd turn to your friend and have them take a
| picture of your phone.
|
| In the above case, the outcome was messy. But with some
| effort, people could make reasonable quality "certified"
| pictures of damn near anything by taking a picture of a
| picture. Then there is the more technical approach of
| cracking a system physically in your hands so you can sign
| whatever you want anyway...
|
| I think the aim should be less on the camera hardware
| attestation and more on the user. "It is signed with their
| key! They take responsibility for it!"
|
| But then we need:
|
| 1. fully active and scaled public/private key encryption for
| all users for whatever they want to do
|
| 2. a world where people are held responsible for their
| actions...
|
| I'm not sure which is more unrealistic.
| condiment wrote:
| I don't disagree with including user attestation in
| addition to hardware attestation.
|
| The notion of their being a "analog hole" for devices that
| attest that their content is real is correct on the face,
| but is a very flawed criticism. Right now, anybody on earth
| can open up an LLM and generate an image. Anybody on earth
| can open up Photoshop and manipulate an image. And there's
| no accountability for where that content came from. But not
| everybody on earth is capable of projecting an image and
| photographing it in a way that is in distinguishable from
| taking a photo of reality. Especially when you've taken
| into consideration that these cameras are capturing depths
| of field information, location information, and other
| metadata.
|
| I think it's a mistake to demand perfection. This is about
| trust in media and creating foundational technologies that
| allow for that trust to be restored. Imagine if every
| camera and every piece of editing software had the ability
| to sign its output with a description of any mutations.
| That is a chain of metadata where each link in the chain
| can be assigned to trust score. If, an addition to
| technology signatures, human signatures are included, that
| just builds additional trust. At some point, it would be
| inappropriate for news or social media not to use this
| information when presenting content.
|
| As others have mentioned, C2PA is a reasonable step in this
| direction.
| Razengan wrote:
| 3. Tech that can directly read memories from our brains.
| exodust wrote:
| Perhaps if it measured depth it could detect "flat surface"
| and flag that in the recorded data. Cameras already "know"
| what is near or far simply by focusing.
| ija wrote:
| I wonder if a 360 degree image in addition to the 'main'
| photo could show that the photo was part of a real scene and
| not just a photo of an image? Not proof exactly but getting
| closer to it.
| ellenhp wrote:
| If someone cared enough to spend money on this I think it would
| be an easy to medium difficulty project to use an FPGA and a
| CSI-2 IP to pretend to be the sensor. Good luck fixing that
| without baking a secure element into your sensor.
| ajdlinux wrote:
| I'd be shocked if the major sensor vendors don't already have
| engineers working on exactly that, though.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| Sony has this - https://authenticity.sony.net/camera/en-
| us/index.html
| boobsbr wrote:
| Stop hijacking the scrolling.
| allthetime wrote:
| hijacking is one thing, but this completely ruins native scroll
| function. It's actually just broken garbage front-end
| edf13 wrote:
| Can't I just photo a printed AI generated pic? What use is the
| proof?
| jeswin wrote:
| I am actually willing to support DIY camera efforts, but if
| you're semi-serious about taking pictures, this just wouldn't
| work. First, Raspberry Pi (I'm guessing this is a CM4/CM5) is a
| disaster for a camera board. Nobody wants a 20s boot every time
| you want to take a picture, cameras need to be near
| instantaneous. And you can't keep it on either, because the RPi
| can't really sleep. There are boards that can actually sleep, but
| with fewer sensor options.
|
| Now moving on to the sensor (IMX 519 - Arducam?) - it's tinier
| than the tiniest sensor found on phones. If you really want to
| have decent image quality, you should look at Will Whang's
| OneInchEye and Four-thirds eye (https://www.willwhang.dev/). 4/3
| Eye uses IMX294 which is currently the only large sensor which
| has Linux support (I think he upstreamed it) and MIPI. All the
| other larger sensors use interfaces like SLVS which are
| impossible to connect to.
|
| If anyone's going to attempt a serious camera, they need to do
| two things. Use at least a 1 inch sensor, and a board which can
| actually sleep (which means it can't be the RPi). This would mean
| a bunch of difficult work, such as drivers to get these sensors
| to work with those boards. The Alice Camera
| (https://www.alice.camera/) is a better attempt and probably uses
| the IMX294 as well. The most impressive attempt however is
| Wenting Zhang's Sitina S1 -
| (https://rangefinderforum.com/threads/diy-full-frame-
| digital-...). He used a full frame Kodak CCD Sensor.
|
| There is a market for a well made camera like the Fuji X-Half. It
| doesn't need to have a lot of features, just needs to have
| ergonomics and take decent pictures. Stuff like proofs are
| secondary to what actually matters - first it needs to take good
| pictures, which the IMX 519 is going to struggle with.
| ugh123 wrote:
| From these pics it actually looks like a whole PI4 board is
| used https://farcaster.xyz/faust
| jeswin wrote:
| Interesting. I'm curious why they would do that.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| All the stuff is off the shelf. Makes it way easier to
| develop. There is no reason to actually use RPi, compute
| module or not, as a base camera board (talking from
| experience) other than it is super easy to start with.
| jeswin wrote:
| I disagree. If CM5 had the ability to sleep at tiny
| fractions of a watt, there are really practical and
| usable cameras you can pull off today, even when it's not
| the most efficient. For all the downsides, it would more
| than make up in the ease-of-development department.
|
| I believe if RPi6 adds sleep, you'd see a flurry of
| portable gadgets built on the platform.
| swores wrote:
| You're agreeing with them, not disagreeing! :)
|
| The person who you replied to said they only reason to
| choose them is easiness, and you've replied saying you
| disagree because for all the downsides the easiness makes
| up for it.
| amne wrote:
| 1. buy stuff for $50
|
| 2. 3d print a couple of cases for $10
|
| 3. repurpose highschool summer break crypto project ..
| free? (excluding time spent)
|
| 4. ???
|
| 5. profit from selling it for $400 a pop
| HelloUsername wrote:
| > There is a market for a well made camera like the Fuji
| X-Half.
|
| That product has for its specs a ridiculous price point of
| EUR750..
| jeswin wrote:
| But you don't buy it for the specs, you buy it for the
| experience. It topped sales charts when it was launched. If I
| had more time to spend on photography, or if I was younger,
| or if it was a little cheaper I'd have bought it myself.
|
| I suspect more will follow the X-Half, because it gets
| orientation right. Most images are viewed today in portrait
| mode, and half-frame is the right format for that.
| HelloUsername wrote:
| > if it was a little cheaper I'd have bought it myself.
|
| Same here. Even for the experience it's overpriced.
| bborud wrote:
| The people who buy these cameras would probably be better
| served by upgrading their phones. Phones are good enough
| cameras for this use and they are infinitely better at
| processing.
|
| As a long time hobbyist photographer I can understand
| buying cameras because they have a certain appeal. But I
| have to say that I honestly do not understand why someone
| would spend lots of money and then not want to take
| advantage of the technology offered.
|
| I think shooting to JPEG and using film profiles is kind of
| pointless. If you want to shoot film, shoot film. Imagine
| you have taken a really good picture, but it'll always look
| worse than it could because you threw away most of the data
| and applied some look to it that will date it.
|
| I do understand that a lot of people think these cameras
| are worth buying. And that they are selling well. But I
| can't understand why.
| gavinmckenzie wrote:
| There are many motivations for shooting jpeg with film
| sims, from just not wanting to expend the effort editing
| photos to my motivation as a colour-blind person who
| simply cannot see colour well enough to manually adjust
| photos. For me, it's incredible being able to choose a
| film simulation and be happy with the result even if I
| know that the colours I'm seeing aren't quite the same
| that others will see. It's the entire reason I bought
| into the FujiFilm system.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I think almost everyone here is missing the point of this
| camera. In the post truth AI future, this is the camera you
| want when you photograph the billionaire or President or your
| spouse doing something awful. Any other photo proof won't work
| because it can always be called fake. And yes I'm being
| serious. You are missing the point if you say the quality isn't
| good enough or it's too slow or bulky. The idea is the provable
| authenticity, which is going to be very important in the coming
| decades.
| JohnKemeny wrote:
| You can just AI generate a photo and snap a picture of that.
|
| There's no such thing as _provable authenticity_.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| That's likely to be easily detected.
| macNchz wrote:
| I imagine that, if attested cameras like this come into any
| sort of regular use, you'll see additional layers of
| metadata mixed into the signature--a depth map, GPS,
| accelerometers, operator biometrics etc, none of which are
| necessarily infallible, but which certainly create
| considerable barriers to faking things.
| ACCount37 wrote:
| I think some of the modern iPhone cameras use SLVS, so non-
| iPhone Apple Silicon might have a way of connecting to that
| natively too. Good luck using that though.
|
| Without a native connection option, what remains to you is
| probably an FPGA converter (to MIPI CSI-2 D-PHY), which is
| going to be expensive of course. But still not as expensive as
| the sensor itself and the associated optics.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > Nobody wants a 20s boot every time you want to take a picture
|
| But that's less due to the RPi and more due to lots of amateur
| projects that ship the RPi with a _desktop_ Linux distribution
| like Raspbian (itself based on a very conservative one - Debian
| - that loves preserving decades of legacy crap).
|
| You can absolutely get quick boot times on an RPi (or on an x86
| machine for that matter, although you are limited by the time
| the firmware itself takes to boot) if you build your own read-
| only image with Buildroot/Yocto like any embedded shop would.
|
| But I agree with the rest of the comment - an RPi is a terrible
| device for this (and for most purposes besides prototyping in
| fact). But not because of boot time reasons.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Another thread mentioned that this camera was made by crypto
| enthusiasts from a software/ZKP starting point, and not a
| photography starting point. If true, it will have a lot of
| maturation to do, but most likely they will either be
| incorporated into a "real" camera design, or they will just
| fold.
| mochomocha wrote:
| I know nothing about photography, but I'll just comment on this
| point:
|
| > (I'm guessing this is a CM4/CM5) is a disaster for a camera
| board. Nobody wants a 20s boot every time you want to take a
| picture, cameras need to be near instantaneous.
|
| You can boot an RPI in a couple hundred milliseconds.
| feketegy wrote:
| Is this another cash grab? The founders who made this don't seem
| to know what real photography is.
| blauditore wrote:
| It's not like questioning the authenticity of a photo is a new
| thing "in the age of AI". Manipulating photos has always been a
| thing, long before photoshop even.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| Heh, few years ago I built myself a RPi Zero based camera.
|
| I wonder how have they made the boot up fast enough to not be
| annoying.
|
| I used non-real time eInk display to cut down on the battery life
| so I could just keep it on in my pocket while out taking pictures
| since it took good minute to get ready from cold boot.
| silcoon wrote:
| Looks like a weekend project, done with a third of the cost as a
| budget.
| ollybee wrote:
| I always assumed high end CCTV cameras already did something like
| this?
| merelysounds wrote:
| I'm a photographer in my spare time; looks like this product
| isn't about what images are being produced, or about the shooting
| experience - and this discourages me.
|
| When the goal is having a proof that the photo hasn't been edited
| or ai generated, using an analog camera and shooting on film
| seems more practical to me than using a device like this.
| blharr wrote:
| Could an AI not be trained to emulate the look of analog film
| and its artifacts?
| merelysounds wrote:
| I meant that there is a proof of the photo being taken and a
| record of what the photo looked like before any edits (a
| photo negative).
| quailfarmer wrote:
| Kudos for making this exist, it was an inevitable place for the
| conversation to lead, and I'm actually glad it was "hacked"
| together as a project rather than forced into a consumer product.
| The camera specs don't really matter here, this is about having
| the conversation. If this catches on, it will be a feature of
| every smartphone SoC.
|
| On one hand, it's a cool application of cryptography as a power
| tool to balance AI, but on the other, it's a real hit to free and
| open systems. There's a risk that concern over AI spirals into a
| justification for mandatory attestation that undermines digital
| freedom. See: online banking apps that refuse to operate on free
| devices.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| This has it all wrong.
|
| The truth is worse than anyone wants to face. It was never about
| authenticity or creativity. Those words are just bullshit armor
| for fragile egos. Proofs and certificates do not mean a damn
| thing.
|
| AI tore the mask off. It showed that everything we worship, art,
| music, poetry, beauty, all of it runs on patterns. Patterns so
| simple and predictable that a lifeless algorithm can spit them
| out while we sit here calling ourselves special. The magic we
| swore was human turns out to be math wearing makeup.
|
| Strip away the label and no one can tell who made it. The human
| touch we brag about dissolves into noise. The line between
| creator and creation never existed. We were just too arrogant to
| admit it.
|
| Love, happiness, beauty, meaning, all of it is chemistry and
| physics. Neurons firing, hormones leaking, atoms slamming into
| each other. That is what we are when we fall in love, when we
| cry, when we write a song we think no machine could ever match.
| It is all the same damn pattern. Give a machine enough data and
| it will mimic our souls so well we will start to feel stupid for
| ever thinking we had one.
|
| This is not the future. It is already moving beneath us. The
| trendline is clear. AI will make films that crush Hollywood.
| Maybe not today, maybe not next year, but that is where the graph
| is pointing. And artists who refuse to use it, who cling to the
| old ways out of pride or fear, are just holding on to stupidity.
| The tools have changed. Pretending they have not is the fastest
| way to become irrelevant.
|
| Yes, maybe right now you can still tell the difference. Maybe it
| is obvious. But look at the rate. Look at the slope of that
| goddamn line. The speed of progress is unmistakable. Every year
| the gap closes. Every year the boundary between man and machine
| blurs a little more. Anyone who cannot see where this is going,
| anyone who cannot admit that this is a realistic possibility, is
| in total denial. The projection of that line into the future
| cannot be ignored. It is not speculation anymore. It is math, and
| it is happening right in front of us.
|
| People will still scoff, call it soulless, call it fake. But put
| them in a blind test and they will swear it was human. The
| applause will sound exactly the same.
|
| And one day a masterpiece will explode across the world. Everyone
| will lose their minds over it. Critics will write essays about
| its beauty and depth. People will cry, saying it touched
| something pure in them. Then the creator will step forward and
| say it was AI. And the whole fucking world will go quiet.
|
| Because in that silence we will understand. There was never
| anything special about us. No divine spark. No secret soul. Just
| patterns pretending to mean something.
|
| We are noise that learned to imitate order. Equations wrapped in
| skin. Puppets jerking to the pull of chemistry, pretending it is
| choice.
| liqilin1567 wrote:
| But I feel like some creativity comes from breaking existing
| patterns
| ArcherGorgonite wrote:
| It has to be a joke...
| dandanua wrote:
| Any device like this is useless, because you can print an AI
| generated picture and then take a photo of it. It's like NFTs in
| the crypto world, which have proofs that prove essentially
| nothing.
| defraudbah wrote:
| lol, faq is funny
|
| how long does the batter last
|
| > Currently, the battery will last estimated 2~3 hours on
| constant use on a full charge. It can last much longer if it is
| off.
| dsrtslnd23 wrote:
| I remember reading in some Qualcomm Snapdragon document that
| Qualcomm integrated some image authenticity method. Not sure if
| this ever landed in an end-product?
| russellbeattie wrote:
| This shouldn't be a product, but a licensed patented technology
| like Dolby or CDMA, sold to OEMs and directly integrated into
| cameras and phones.
|
| It should be an industry standard system for guaranteeing
| authenticity by coordinating hardware and software to be as
| tamper proof as possible and saved in a cryptographically
| verifiable way.
|
| No system like this would be perfect, but that's the enemy of the
| good.
| Bengalilol wrote:
| The main argument of this product is to "capture verifiably real
| moments". Though I find it interesting (and am quite liking the
| object), I do not tend to think this is a strong argument for
| this product: capturing a picture of a unreal picture would make
| it real (as discussed in this thread), moreover what would
| prevent any phone manufacturer from integrating the same type of
| "validation" into their hardware?
| t43562 wrote:
| They are already doing it e.g. Sony.
|
| https://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/sony-annou...
|
| It needs a certificate issuance and validation system
| https://c2pa.org/
| grey-area wrote:
| This looks interesting. I love the retro styling and transparent
| case. The proofs and selling it as some sort of fight-back
| against AI seems tenuous and as the user controls the hardware -
| going to be hard to keep that system hermetically sealed due to
| giving the user the keys on device. Also though almost nobody
| actually cares very much about attesting that their photos are
| somehow real and untouched by AI.
|
| There are larger problems when you consider this question. What
| is real and not in photography is a long and storied debate - any
| photograph is ultimately a curation of a small part of the real
| world - what is just out of frame could completely change the
| interpretation of the viewer if they saw it, regardless of
| whether the picture is unaltered after taking. The choice of
| framing, colours, subject etc etc can radically alter meaning.
| There is no getting away from this.
|
| So ultimately I don't think the biggest problem facing
| photography is attested reality. I actually think the
| democratisation of photography offers a better way out - we have
| so many views on each event now that it's actually _harder_ to
| fake because there are usually hundreds of pictures of the same
| thing.
|
| PS for the site author, there is a typo in the sentence beginning
| - remove the an 'By combining sensors, an on-device zero-
| knowledge proofs'.
| ludicrousdispla wrote:
| Does anyone know if the camera sensor includes depth map
| information? Otherwise what is stopping someone from
| photographing a large high-resolution print of an AI generated
| image.
| zipy124 wrote:
| this one does not. Other cameras do include one, or can make a
| depth sensor via the real sensor since autofocus/focus stacking
| allows depth extraction, especially if using a low aperature
| number.
| dimas_codes wrote:
| I am sorry if I missed something or someone already asked it,
| but:
|
| If I generate image with AI, print it, then take a photo of it
| with Roc Camera so that you can't tell that this is actually a
| printed image, I will then have an AI image with ZKP of its
| authenticity?
| efskap wrote:
| I suspect the EXIF data won't make sense, and the faq says the
| ZKP applies to the metadata as well. But yeah, inherent flaw.
| keiferski wrote:
| Presumably you could stop this by requiring GPS data for the
| image, and match that against a library of other images in the
| location?
| dbdr wrote:
| Sony has this on their related page:
|
| > A digital signature alone cannot determine whether the
| captured image is of an actual 3D subject, or of an image or
| video projected on a high-definition monitor. However, by using
| metadata including 3D depth information, it is possible to
| verify the authenticity of images with a high degree of
| accuracy. By using cameras from Sony, both the image and the 3D
| depth information can be captured on the sensor along the
| single light axis, providing information of high authenticity.
|
| That 3D depth data could presumably be used to detect this. In
| principle, you could also train an AI to generate realistic 3D
| data. It's just not available yet, and probably harder to train
| (in general, and also since you would need to collect new
| massive amount of training data first).
|
| No idea if this specific device has a 3D sensor, addressing the
| general question.
| zipy124 wrote:
| The depth information that sony cameras collect is almost
| certainly low-res enough that even with a simple
| image->depthmap model[0] you could fool it. Also they don't
| say anything about the sensor itself being secure, no need to
| print something if you can just emulate the sensor with an
| FPGA or other.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/CompVis/depth-fm
| ajdlinux wrote:
| My initial reactions:
|
| - I hope they succeed and eventually deliver a solid version of
| this product - verifiable photography is going to become
| important, and it's good to see startups working on this - While
| I'm sure some artists will like the idea of verifiable
| photography, the applications that matter to me are any kind of
| photography that has the potential to end up in a news article or
| in court - Selling what is essentially a prototype is fine, it's
| extremely obvious that's what it is, they explicitly say it! Who
| cares if it's not very good as a camera? - The almost complete
| lack of information on their site about their security model or
| how their ZKPs work is not particularly encouraging - It follows
| that my faith that either the cryptography or the hardware anti-
| tamper measures in this beta device would stand up to even some
| decent amateurs, given a couple of weeks to have a crack at it,
| is not high. I'm almost tempted to buy one just to see how far I,
| a random kernel engineer who gets modestly decent scores at my
| local hacker con CTF, could get. But I may well be completely
| underestimating them! Hard to tell with the fairly scarce
| information - Why did they pick a name that's similar to a) AMD's
| GPU stack, and b) the law enforcement/natsec computer vision
| business, ROC (https://roc.ai)?
| flyinglizard wrote:
| Good thinking, but the problem here is that in order to make a
| good camera which takes verifiable photos you first need to make
| a good camera, and that's quite hard.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I like the concept (because I was proposing such a couple of
| years back) and the software implementation seems good. But holy
| shit that thing is ugly. They could(should) have worked with a
| cheap camera maker like Lomokino to make a bare-bones rangefinder
| or twin lens reflex. This is one of the worst designs I have ever
| seen. Sorry.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| It is seriously ugly. Especially for $399. Was that
| intentional?
| skeptrune wrote:
| I like the spirit of this, but not the implementation. It feels
| very performative to create a ZK proof to show that a photo is
| real. And not really in the spirit of capturing magic moments on
| film.
|
| I think that a disposable camera, or even something fancier, like
| a Mamiya C330, are better and more gratifying bets for the money.
| monooso wrote:
| There is something deeply dystopian about the phrase "verifiably
| real moments."
| anigbrowl wrote:
| https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/We%20Can%2...
| dschuetz wrote:
| $400 lul what
| Tepix wrote:
| Remember, Nikon's image authentication was hacked back in 2011
| https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2011/04/nikon-image-authenticatio...
|
| The ACLU is sceptical regarding the whole concept:
| https://www.aclu-or.org/en/news/attempts-technological-solut...
|
| The _root causes_ podcast discusses this topic in its episode
| 336: https://www.sectigo.com/resource-library/root-
| causes-336-dig...
|
| I strongly believe this should be an open source project.
| vlan121 wrote:
| Security 101: * Kerckhoff Principle of Open Design Security of
| a mechanism should not depend on the secrecy of its design or
| implementation.
| esaym wrote:
| I'm going to buy this just to take a picture of my Kodak mining
| rig...
| qwertytyyuu wrote:
| Is this nfts again?
| blitzar wrote:
| Even a pivot to "its not Ai" has the same bandwagon feel as
| "pivoting to Ai".
| abricq wrote:
| What I am waiting for is something similar to this (proof of
| image ownership / authenticity) embedded in smartphones cameras.
|
| Not sure if ZK is the right way of achieving this. Even if the
| cryptographic guarantees are strong, generating these proofs is
| very expensive.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| That's tricky because it needs to store and verify metadata
| that the user cannot edit and that allows one to distinguish a
| "normal" photo from a professional photography of a photo. The
| only place where this can happen are the camera settings but
| these are limited on smart phones and it's not easy to discern
| the two cases. I'm sure someone would print a 10x10 meter fake
| image, put it at just the right distance, and wait for the best
| indirect light to prove that the Yeti exists.
| realharo wrote:
| Just include a depth sensor, lidar, etc. I'm sure over time
| that will become increasingly easy to defeat too, but then we
| can just keep improving the sensors too.
| realharo wrote:
| Some smartphone cameras already have this. Samsung tried it on
| the S25 but apparently did it wrong
| (https://petapixel.com/2025/02/13/samsungs-image-
| authenticity...). Google has it on the Pixel 10 line.
|
| I think it's very likely the next iPhone will have some form of
| authenticity proof too, I just hope Apple doesn't go with its
| own standard again that's incompatible with everything else.
| bnreed wrote:
| Samsung were also the ones who demonstrated a fatal flaw in
| C2PA: device manufacturers are explicitly trusted in
| implementation.
|
| C2PA requires trust that manufacturers would not be
| materially modifying the scene using convolutional neural
| networks to detect objects and add/remove details[1]
|
| 1) https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-
| galaxy...
| novoreorx wrote:
| This kinda like a PoC for ZK Proof used in digital devices,
| however, I don't think a Raspberry Pi in a 3D printed case should
| be made a real product, it lacks actualy use cases. Honestly, I
| like this concept, but I think it should belong to a personal art
| exhibition or DIY competition...
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| $400 for a raspberry pi in an ugly 3d printed case ?
|
| I love the idea, but the product execution is simply horrendous.
| It looks more like a money grab gimmick. The sensor selection is
| also bad, the image quality will be terrible.
| pharos92 wrote:
| $399 USD. L.O.L.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| I fail to see the hand wringing about media forms that didn't
| exist 150 years ago.
|
| Even worse when I see people saying "it's over" for slop content
| posted on social media
|
| We lived fine and well before social media or photography or
| videos.
| gherard5555 wrote:
| 400$ for a phone camera stuck on a raspberry pi ? I will pass
| this one...
| donaldihunter wrote:
| I don't think ZK proofs help to establish trust in a photo's
| authenticity at all. C2PA is a well thought out solution to this
| problem.
|
| https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.2/spec...
|
| > The C2PA information comprises a series of statements that
| cover areas such as asset creation, edit actions, capture device
| details, bindings to content and many other subjects. These
| statements, called assertions, make up the provenance of a given
| asset and represent a series of trust signals that can be used by
| a human to improve their view of trustworthiness concerning the
| asset. Assertions are wrapped up with additional information into
| a digitally signed entity called a claim.
| brokensegue wrote:
| I don't get how this is the only comment that doubts how their
| proofs work. There is zero detail or explanation of what they
| are proving
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| This is true, there is no detail.
|
| The idea with zero knowledge proofs is that typically,
| photography metadata is stripped when it's posted on
| Facebook. The proof would be a piece of metadata that COULD
| be safe to share in the SPECIFICS of what it proves. For
| example there is a circuit that can show that the photo was
| taken in the United States without leaking the specific
| location the photo was taken.
|
| Presumably the authenticity scheme here is supposed to be, it
| answers it was taken on a real camera in a real place,
| without leaking any of the metadata. They are vague because
| probably that circuit (proving program and scheme) hasn't
| been designed yet.
|
| I also don't know if it is possible to make useful assertions
| at all in such a scheme, since authenticity is a collection
| of facts (for example) and ZK is usually used to specifically
| make association of related facts harder.
| gnyman wrote:
| Neal Krawetz of fotoforensics (and others probably) disagree
| that C2PA "is a well thought out solution"
|
| https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?%2Farchives%2F10...
| (search his blog if you want more of his thoughts on it)
|
| I don't have a know enough bout this but I've been reading his
| blog for other topics a while and he does seem to know a lot
| about photo authenticity.
| boo-ga-ga wrote:
| Fantastic idea, I'm sure there will be more such devices and a
| big market for them. Note to the company: please check the
| scrolling on Firefox (macOS), it's a little weird.
| computersuck wrote:
| What if they take a photo of an AI generated photo
| dwardu wrote:
| So once the company shuts down its servers we've got a lemon?
| astrange wrote:
| I think it'd be more interesting if you made a camera that took
| verifiably fake photos that were guaranteed to be nothing like
| what you pointed it at.
| frouge wrote:
| To me it sounds like someone is trying to create a problem and
| sell it to me. Who needs to create images with proof of reality?
| flanbybleue69 wrote:
| If you do photography for your own pleasure and not for the sake
| of likes, gratification or public opinion you can use whatever
| hardware or software it's alright.
| realharo wrote:
| How does this compare to the content credentials added by the
| Pixel 10's camera?
| throawayonthe wrote:
| i don't get how the attestation works? from the FAQ, the proofs
| are generated on the rpi, which AFAIK doesn't have anything like
| a modern HSM/vault which would allow them to 1. not allow user
| access to the secret or 2. not allow user to put ai-generated
| imagery onto the device for 'attestation'
| self_awareness wrote:
| Interesting, but this is a software project. Camera sensor is
| being bought from Aliexpress in bulk. Competition from companies
| manufacturing cameras, or smartphones, is huge. How this project
| is not a cash grab?
| captainmuon wrote:
| Nooo... I don't want something to exist that can absolutely prove
| that a photo is real. This only serves to enforce social norms
| more rigidly. These include reasonable norms like against
| committing crimes or behaving abusingly but it also includes
| stupid norms like behaving uncool or doing something embarrasing.
| The problem is, where do you draw the line? I think if somebody
| does something stupid or even morally dubious there should always
| be a way of forgetting it.
|
| That you can't believe everything you see in the age of AI is a
| feature, not a bug. We are so used to photographs being hard
| facts that we'll have to go through a hard transition, but we'll
| be fine afterwards, just as we were before the invention of
| photography. Our norms will adapt. And photographs will become
| mere heresay and illustration, but that's OK.
|
| I think here the same dynamic is at play as with music/videos and
| DRM. Our society is so used to doing it the old way - selling
| physical records - that when new technology comes along, which
| allows free copying, we can't go where the technology leads us
| (because we don't know how to feed the artists, and because the
| record industry has too much power), so we invent a mechanism to
| turn back the wheel and make music into a scarce good again.
| Similar here: we can't ban Photoshop and AI, but we invent a
| technology to try to turn back time and make photos "evidence"
| again.
| alyxya wrote:
| It's a cool idea, but I don't know how much people care about a
| photo provably being real. I take pictures with my phone because
| it's simple and convenient. I get the vibe that it's kinda like
| NFTs, where maybe some people would care if certain NFTs are
| unique and permanently on some blockchain, but most people don't.
| Most people won't understand the technical details behind the
| proof so at most they can only trust the claim that a picture is
| provably real.
| seasongs wrote:
| Cool idea, could be implemented in future professional cameras
| but as of right now, I can't think of a single reason that
| someone into photography would buy this
| sfjailbird wrote:
| There was a time when web pages were like regular documents, that
| could easily be scrolled through.
| anon191928 wrote:
| this all assumes nobody will make editing ???? what am I missing
| byyoung3 wrote:
| 399 hahahahahahahahahahahahhahaqhahaha cool idea tho
| globular-toast wrote:
| Has anyone else found themselves becoming hyper-attuned to "AI"
| trickery in photographs?
|
| Just the other day I stumbled across this picture on Wikipedia:
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_AT%26T_wireless_r...
| Can anyone explain what's going on with the front tyre of the
| white car? To me it looks like the actual picture was ingested by
| a model then spat back out again with a weird artifact.
|
| The worrying thing is when it becomes too hard to spot the
| artifacts we won't know how much of our history has been altered
| subtly, either unintentionally or not, by "AI".
| n1c wrote:
| If you like the idea of a small "dumbish" camera but aren't
| fussed about all the ZK proof stuff these are quite fun:
| https://www.campsnapphoto.com/collections/camp-snap-screen-f... I
| have a few and letting my small kid have a blast while not
| getting "screen time" is great.
|
| Side effect is I get a small little window into what he "sees"
| and his lived experience. Going through some of the pics recently
| was quite beautiful.
| amelius wrote:
| > Capture verifiably real moments
|
| What if I make a photo of my screen?
| cesaref wrote:
| There's the C2PA standard which has picked up momentum recently
| to I guess help resolve some of the issues.
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2024-03-c2pa-verification-news...
|
| I believe various cameras support this, e.g. https://www.canon-
| europe.com/press-centre/press-releases/202...
|
| `C2PA Authenticity: Integrated support for the C2PA standard for
| photo authenticity verification - initially available exclusively
| for registered news agencies.`
|
| Sounds like it's limited to some users for now, I guess this will
| change in the future.
|
| Going too far won't really help, since the scene being
| photographed can be manipulated or staged, which sounds more
| likely to be a concern rather than the hardware being hacked.
| jonah wrote:
| Yup, Canon as you mention, also Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, etc.
| The membership is pretty extensive.
|
| https://c2pa.org/membership/
|
| https://www.nikonusa.com/content/nikon-authenticity-service
|
| https://authenticity.sony.net/camera/
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/shopping/panasonic-is-th...
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I find that most people who want to ground things in reality,
| that is at least "reality" without AI or whatever filters are put
| on photos by phones these days, don't have much interest in any
| sort of cryptographic proof of reality... this is in the same
| realm of technology they're trying to avoid.
| rfl890 wrote:
| First Roc Vodka, now this?
| harddrivereque wrote:
| But why does the case look like it is made out of garbage?
| RankingMember wrote:
| It looks 3d-printed (edit: confirmed- there's footage of it
| being 3d printed on the FAQ page). I'd expect a process with a
| better finish for the final product, but who knows with
| products like this that are in beta.
|
| Found this sort of funny too, from the FAQ:
|
| > Is this production ready?
|
| > No. The Roc Camera is currently in beta and we suggest you do
| not use it for anything important at the moment. We're open to
| feedback and suggestions. Please reach out to us at
| support@roc.camera.
| fallat wrote:
| 399 for a sensor and rpi. I'm out.
| Rickasaurus wrote:
| Seems like this could be a great product for law enforcement no?
| Verifiable pictures of evidence.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Are they releasing the STL to let people print their own shell?
| If not, seems odd to advertise the fact that it's 3d printed with
| standard (Bambu Lab) printers.
| didacusc wrote:
| What a silly idea, a whole Raspberry Pi for basic photography!
| Just the boot-up alone would drive someone nuts, you'd miss the
| moment every time and I'd drain your battery if you left it on.
| So silly.
| ch_fr wrote:
| > How are my photos stored?
|
| >> We store the photos generated by the Roc Camera on IPFS (by
| default). We'll have more information on this soon, so check back
| for more details in the future.
|
| > How do I get my photos off the camera?
|
| >> Coming soon. We're working on export functionality to get your
| photos off the camera.
|
| > Where is the ZKP generated?
|
| >> The zero-knowledge proofs are generated on-device using the
| Raspberry Pi 4.
|
| I am a bit puzzled as to why IPFS was used as the "primary"
| storage medium there, it's a Pi so wouldn't it be pretty easy to
| make it have a micro-sd port? Wouldn't it be able to work fully
| locally then?
|
| When I look at their socials, it seems like they primarily engage
| with a crypto-focused audience, all of this leads me to believe
| that IPFS and ZKP are the actual main appeal of this product...
| not that there's anything overtly wrong with this.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Well, its more likely they just don't know. They haven't
| figured that out. So, they'll hire a hardware guy and it'll all
| change.
| christopherwxyz wrote:
| I was part of the presale. I own one and am using it daily.
|
| Invested in it because of the emerging opportunities from
| crypto and ZKPs.
| tantalor wrote:
| How to defeat this:
|
| Step 1: Create an AI image and display it.
|
| Step 2: Use this camera to take a picture of it.
|
| Now you have "attested" proof of "verifiably real" image.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| Indeed it can't authenticate photons. Security isn't about
| making things perfectly safe, but to make it harder for the bad
| guys.
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| Isn't the broader idea here valid? Will news agencies have
| cryptographic attestation in their cameras?
| kingnothing wrote:
| This page cannot be scrolled in Safari or Firefox.
|
| Devs -- stop hijacking native scrolling functionality. Why? You
| had one shot to sell me on this product. I can't see the page, so
| I can't consider it for purchase. That's a lost sale.
| napolux wrote:
| This is so "silicon valley", like the juicero thing.
| cawksuwcka wrote:
| NFT camera! sick!
| vzaliva wrote:
| This is the right direction - the only way to go about fake
| images and video is digital signatures. Phone camera should be
| able to do this as well. Then we can have signatures of software
| used for processing them (on top) cerityfing what changes have
| been done: e.g. contract correction filter applied, signed by
| Adobe Photoshop.
| perdomon wrote:
| This is a cool idea, but why is it $400? This feels more like an
| open-source passion project than a legitimate business venture.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| The custom scolling is janky on Safari.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| no moat
|
| this is one of those things you shouldn't buy aside from novelty,
| but this idea wouldnt reach the light of day now without doing it
| this way
|
| the real goal would be integration into more popular camera
| systems
|
| I hope the founders and this concept gets all the support they
| are looking for
| I_dream_of_Geni wrote:
| This sounds cool. But why so freaking expensive??
| fitsumbelay wrote:
| Lots of cool ideas here - crypto first/crypto everything, IPFS
| and soon Farcaster integration. But the price is a big negative.
|
| I also believe that whatever they're aiming at with verifiably
| real photos will either be commodified or end up not being valued
| very highly.
|
| It's not quite the Rabbit R1 (at least the presentation here
| seems more honest) but I don't see it generating more than niche-
| of-niche interest.
|
| Also, and maybe more to the previous point about commodification
| (or within-reach tech), this is the kind of project I can imagine
| hardware hacker/AI and crypto enthusiast doing on their own ( and
| I guess selling to friends and neighbors for $400 ... )
| zalusio wrote:
| Obviously, this has the vulnerability that you can take a picture
| of a computer monitor with it, showing whatever you want to.
|
| Apple could really make an interesting product here where they
| combine the LIDAR data with the camera data, cryptographically
| sign it, and attest to it as unmodified straight from the camera.
| Can it still be faked? Yes, but it's much harder to do.
| kfarr wrote:
| > Obviously, this has the vulnerability that you can take a
| picture of a computer monitor with it, showing whatever you
| want to.
|
| Is this a reverse analog loophole?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole
| maieuticagent wrote:
| Consider pivoting from hardware sales to verification-as-a-
| service. Your camera could be the universal input device for
| identity verification (less creepy than Worldcoin's Orb),
| insurance claims, real estate documentation, and legal evidence.
| Think transaction fees per verification, not one-time camera
| sales. The consumer angle is weak - most people won't buy
| specialized hardware to prove their vacation photos are real. But
| enterprises would absolutely pay for a solution that reduces
| fraud, accelerates claims processing, or enables compliant remote
| verification. Dating apps would pay for "verified real person"
| badges. Banks would pay for remote account opening. Stop trying
| to create a problem and start solving the expensive problems that
| already exist:
|
| Identity verification for financial services, social platforms,
| and gig economy (KYC/AML compliance) Professional tools for
| insurance, real estate, law enforcement, and healthcare
| documentation Enterprise authentication-as-a-service model
| shocks wrote:
| Just shoot film.
| elif wrote:
| Who's really going to check if I spoofed the camera sensor data,
| and why?
|
| Also does this mean I can't adjust colors or make any changes to
| my photos?
|
| I could see this being neat in the context of a digital detox
| photo competition or something, but I don't see any real place
| for this in Art world
| joelthelion wrote:
| Possibly some serious media looking to authenticate news
| pictures?
| r2b2 wrote:
| This camera's attestation and zero-knowledge proof cannot verify
| that a photo is not AI generated. Worse, those "verifications"
| may trick people into believing photos are trustworthy or
| authentic that are not.
|
| Similar to ad-clicks or product reviews, if this were to catch
| on, Roc cameras (and Roc camera farms) will be used to take
| photos of inauthentic photos.
|
| Ultimately, the only useful authenticity test is human
| reputation.
|
| If someone (or an organization) wants to be trusted as authentic,
| the best they can do is stake their identity on the authenticity
| of things they do and share, over and over.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-24 23:01 UTC)