Thread

1. tristanj · 1789527436 · focus · HN ↗

   Apple doesn't address the modified photo replay situation, where you take a picture of an already edited image.

   Photoshop / AI-gen an image -> display on a high-resolution monitor -> photograph the monitor with iPhone 18 Pro -> valid Apple Reference image.

   To get valid reference photos, you can go to the actual physical location, put the iPhone/monitor in a cardboard box to block external light, then photograph the monitor. Paint the inside of the box using Vantablack (stopping reflections) and cover the LiDAR projector with tape.

   I can't wait to see Apple Verified™ photos of UFOs flying over the Golden Gate Bridge.

   1. pveierland · 1789528538 · focus · HN ↗

      Claim 7 in this patent application describes how depth sensors are used as part of an image authentication process, which would make such a workaround more difficult:

      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;image-ppubs.uspto.gov&#x2F;dirsearch-public&#x2F;print&#x2F;downloadPdf&#x2F;20260268025" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;image-ppubs.uspto.gov&#x2F;dirsearch-public&#x2F;print&#x2F;downloa...

      The Apple Reference Image feature is here launched on iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max that both have built-in LiDAR sensors that could be used for this process.

      1. BugsJustFindMe · 1789528800 · focus · HN ↗

         iPhone lidar only works up to like 16 feet in the easiest lighting conditions (indoors) and may be functionally ineffective outdoors.

         1. gruez · 1789529358 · focus · HN ↗

            So you need a big enough screen to cover the entire field of view at 16 ft? Sounds expensive

            1. BugsJustFindMe · 1789529818 · focus · HN ↗

               Well, first, that&#x27;s only expensive if you&#x27;re poor. The world is absolutely full of people who can easily piss away your entire annual income throwing a house party.

               But I really mean that if the lidar barely works outdoors anyway then actually you don&#x27;t need to be 16 feet away at all.

               Anyway, one may presume that they&#x27;ve thought about this.

               1. brookst · 1789531241 · focus · HN ↗

                  Thought about it and also are bright enough not to fall for the “if a single person dies wearing a seat belt, we should abandon seat belts because they do no good at all” fallacy.

                  It’s almost certainly possible to fool v1 of this system, for some images, in some contexts. It would be shocking if the first implementation was completely perfect. But maybe it’s better than nothing?

                  1. croon · 1789725304 · focus · HN ↗

                     If fake images get certified as real, that&#x27;s a net negative compared to now where the verification boils down to chain of trust.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.