Thread

1. rickdeckard · 1789544901 · focus · HN ↗

   To me the weakest spot of this whole endeavor is how this will create false confidence in a story just because the accompanying images pass Apple's verification.

   Like with the Watch Ultra (attacking the diving-watch market with the sheer volume-scale of selling the development to everyone buying a Watch Ultra), Apple is attacking the trusted-imaging market with the same strategy.

   Okay, fine. Will work for sure, this will disrupt the trusted-imaging market and moreover make Apple a service-provider in this industry (with the ramp-up cost paid by customers buying iPhones for entirely different purposes).

   But creating this impression and media-buzz that Apple is now verifying more than just the digital authenticity of an image may shift the public scrutiny of MANY media/online statements:

   There is a risk that random claims (and propaganda) will be given more credibility in the public eye just because they came with images that were confirmed to be "taken like this on an iPhone"

   1. intrasight · 1789550665 · focus · HN ↗

      > images that were confirmed to be "taken like this on an iPhone"

      No, because images will be confirmed to have been taken on "this iPhone". The New York Times will be able to publish an article and to attest that the photographs shown were taken by their journalists, and then your user agent will verify that provenience.

      1. rickdeckard · 1789553053 · focus · HN ↗

         >No, because images will be confirmed to have been taken on "this iPhone".

         Actually the description of Apple makes explicit statements AGAINST that:

         Quote: Privacy preservation: an outside observer cannot determine whether any pair of reference images were taken by the same device

         1. Obscurity4340 · 1789560216 · focus · HN ↗

            > an outside observer

            An inside observer can tho, and if they know or have it, cant they be subpoenaed and forced to disclose the identity?

            This sounds pretty bad for journalists/sources. Why is this needed now of all times?

            1. rickdeckard · 1789561131 · focus · HN ↗

               Your guess is as good as mine...
            2. intrasight · 1789587091 · focus · HN ↗

               I think it's great for journalists and journalism because maybe people will stop paying attention to crap on social media, which won't have such verification, and they'll be instead looking at legit journalism.

               1. Obscurity4340 · 1789592238 · focus · HN ↗

                  Not to contradict but that sounds overly rosy
      2. mitxela · 1789553159 · focus · HN ↗

         And then every anonymous source gets revealed, and the government bombs then for the greater good.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.