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

▲

pveierland 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Still, that means that either the fake target scene and your screen presenting it would need to be outside of LiDAR sensor bounds, or you'd need to find a way to make the depth sensor data conform with your fake scene, both increasing the difficulty of producing a forgery.

	▲	BugsJustFindMe an hour ago \| parent [-]
		https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49721878 > increasing the difficulty of producing a forgery The problem with this thinking is twofold: 1) Whether it actually meaningfully increases the difficulty of a forgery remains to be seen. Despite their initial language about discerning real events, we see no details here about what scene information is used. 2) It increases the potential value of a forgery because now your forgery is attested by Apple. So it either makes it easier to defraud people or more worthwhile to put in the effort to defraud people or both. None of those outcomes are great.

▲

gruez 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

nomel 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Or, probably just some optics, like a slanted $9 IR mirror [1] in front of it, to direct the lidar to the sky/absorption box. Then you can point at the high res HDR TV that's probably already in your living room.

[1] https://commonlands.com/products/ir-cut-filters-csp650?srslt...

▲

BugsJustFindMe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, first, that's only expensive if you'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't need to be 16 feet away at all.

Anyway, one may presume that they've thought about this.

▲

brookst 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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?

	▲	MisterKent an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The problem is that if defeating it is trivial, then it _authenticates_ fake images. The problem is that it makes it easier to fool people and provide "cryptographic" evidence of validity, backed by big tech. It's purpose is to stop bad actors from passing of fake as real just as much as it is to prevent real images being dismissed as fake.
	▲	alwillis 38 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> 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. Knowing Apple, they've been working on and testing Apple Reference Image for years. It being perfect isn't the issue; it's that random people on the internet who are just learning about this assume Apple's engineers haven't already thought about everything (and more) mentioned in this thread.
	▲	BugsJustFindMe 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> But maybe it’s better than nothing? I think this will depend on how it gets used. I can imagine numerous outcomes where it's in fact worse than nothing (significantly more effective blackmail, for instance).
	▲	akersten 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> maybe it’s better than nothing? While that is not quite my bar of confidence when implementing wide-reaching technologies that have numerous unexplored knock-on effects, I guess the calculus must have been different on Infinite Loop recently.
	▲	dd8601fn an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I like that seatbelt argument example. I’ve seen that type of argument a million times, and I’ll certainly reuse that.

▲

somethinsfishy an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Put some sugar on it. Please.

	▲	BugsJustFindMe an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Def Leppard, is that you?