Thread

1. tgsovlerkhgsel · 1789535685 · focus · HN ↗

   This is really clever from Apple. The journalist use case is just the PR story. This will be really useful for identity verification and insurance apps, and has the potential to shift from "you need a smartphone to be able to live normally" to "you need an iPhone to be able to live normally".

   There are already plenty of insurances that require you to submit claims through a smartphone app that tries to essentially do this by capturing sensor metadata etc. - those don't need to be nation-state resilient, just Joe the Crackhead Insurance Scammer resilient, so this works. Likewise, more and more things online require identity verification (either officially or disguised as age verification).

   Edit: And while "a nation state actor can spoof this" is a problem for the journalism use case, the insurance/ID verification use cases are perfectly fine with anything that raises the bar but could be bypassed with enough effort. Also, the journalism use case suffers from the same fundamental issue all of these use cases suffer from: People will "verify" the picture by looking at the repost of a screenshot of the verification UI, not by verifying the original themselves.

   1. Topfi · 1789543520 · focus · HN ↗

      > […] the potential to shift from "you need a smartphone to be able to live normally" to "you need an iPhone to be able to live normally".

      Why do you believe Android manufacturers and SOC makers like Qualcomm won’t be able to offer a similar solution?

      1. rickdeckard · 1789544175 · focus · HN ↗

         Not the OP, but yes, other vendors will be able to support that as well. But a camera sensor that has

         1. a public/private key exchanged during device-production (production-cost),

         2. the capability to reboot in a cryptographic mode (R&D / component cost) and

         3. a cloud-service which then processes the raw data to create a JPG (operational cost)

         comes at a premium. Why should this premium be applied on a 99 USD Smartphone?

         Which is my whole puzzle on this vector: If the big benefit is for insurance/ID-verification, which apply cost-saving by offloading their process to the untrusted customer, how much they can offload this by requiring their customer to own a 1000+ USD smartphone to provide THEIR service...?

         The most I can imagine is insurances offloading their work to OTHER companies, NOT trusting them and therefore requiring them to own a 1000+ USD Smartphone. But even then, why not use a third party app that also runs on a 3y old iPhone and a 99 USD Android device...?

         1. Topfi · 1789544919 · focus · HN ↗

            We have 99USD smartphones with 1080p+ AMOLEDs, massive 5k amp batteries and very performant SOCs (e.g. Galaxy A16) among other costly, but not vital niceties. I struggle to see how cost could be a factor here.

            1. rickdeckard · 1789547510 · focus · HN ↗

               > I struggle to see how cost could be a factor here.

               Okay. In good faith, I'll go with you:

               If COST is not a factor, why does the Galaxy A16 still have no OIS (Optical Image Stabilization)?

               Unlike this trusted-imaging service, OIS would be a feature for increased user-experience which is highly-matured and exists in Smartphones since 2013.

               The answer is COST: A camera-module with OIS is a more-expensive component than a module without it.

               And that's ONLY the component-cost: A OIS-camera doesn't come with increased cost in device-production (it's just another component to place and assemble), no increased cost in R&D (the tech is very mature, all the SW is there) and no running costs (there are no cloud-services required to operate OIS)

               1. socalgal2 · 1789547857 · focus · HN ↗

                  How many smartphones have no camera? Zero? Bluetooth? Zero? But they could save cost by not having those. I think they are basically table stakes. If this type of thing becomes required for more and more things then no one will buy a phone that doesn't have them.

                  1. rickdeckard · 1789550200 · focus · HN ↗

                     Yes, the whole insurance self-service is built on smartphones having a camera.

                     But the assumption that smartphone cameras, including those used in 99USD smartphones, will become 100% cryptographic cameras in a few years is highly unlikely, considering that those cameras didn't even gain OIS in the last 13 years despite the feature being highly matured and widely available.

                     Changing the topic to other features won't change that.

                     You seem to lack the understanding how this industry works, and assume that every development naturally just trickles down and becomes a commodity. This is not the case.

                     This cryptographic feature will definitely become available from camera sensor suppliers, first of all likely from Sony. But it will be a feature of premium sensors and will remain a differentiation factor.

                     Sony will not support cryptography to its sensors without additional cost. Device-vendors integrating those sensors then have additional cost in R&D, production AND operations. All this will not be waived and put in a 99USD device.

                     For the other assumption, that "If this type of thing becomes required", I fail to see how this should happen for a mass-market consumer: This feature doesn't authenticate the content of an image, it just authenticates the RAW data of the image sensor. It won't (and shouldn't!) make the user more trusted towards another entity (like Apple mentions themselves in the link)

                     1. coldtea · 1789559972 · focus · HN ↗

                        >But the assumption that smartphone cameras, including those used in 99USD smartphones, will become 100% cryptographic cameras in a few years is highly unlikely, considering that those cameras didn't even gain OIS in the last 13 years despite the feature being highly matured and widely available.

                        Them becoming 70% cryptographic is enough. The people who need the feature, can get a compatible model. Nobody argued that smartphones sold for kids to game on for example should have it.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.