Verification needs to work the other way around, some kind of verifiable chain of trust for photos and videos from real cameras. Watermarking all generated media is impossible.

▲

SirMaster 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't really understand why this is so hard or why it wasn't just done from the get go.

Just have Apple and Google digitally sign videos and photos recorded from phones and then have Google and Meta, etc display that they are authentic when shown on their platforms.

▲

alpha_squared 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're talking about the metadata of the files, which can always be edited and someone will inevitably try to make software to do exactly that. Also, Adobe's proposal for handling generated content is exactly this and they're not able to get buy-in from other companies.

▲

SirMaster 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Edit the metadata in what way? It's a cryptographic hash.

If the bits that make up the video as was recorded by the camera don't match the hash anymore, then you know it was modified. That doesn't mean it's fake, it just means use skepticism when viewing. On the other hand the ones that have not been modified and still match can be trusted.

	▲	SAI_Peregrinus an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Essentially 0% of professional photography or videography uses "straight out of the camera" (SOOC) JPEGs or video. It's always raw photos or "log" video, then edited to look like what the photographer actually saw. The signal would be so noisy as to be useless.

▲

Miraste 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It becomes a hard problem quickly when you introduce editing, and most photos and videos on social media are edited. I'm not sure how it would work. It seems more feasible than universal watermarks, though.

▲

petesergeant 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can bootstrap some of it. I wrote the following for solving this ~9 years ago. Kinda wish I'd done the PhD now: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/multimedia-trust-and-certific...