• @SchmidtGenetics
    link
    English
    -22 months ago

    I guess this would be a good reason to include some exif data when images are hosted on websites, one of the only ways to tell an image is true from my little understanding.

    • @CatsGoMOW
      link
      English
      32 months ago

      Exif data can be faked.

      • @SchmidtGenetics
        link
        English
        -3
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I guess, but the original image would be somewhere to be scraped by google to compare and see an earlier version. Thats why you don’t just look at the single image, you scrape multiple sites looking for others as well.

        Theres obviously very specific use cases that can take advantage of brand new images that are created on a computer, but theres still ways of detecting that with other methods as explained by the user I responded to.

        • @CatsGoMOW
          link
          English
          02 months ago

          It seems like you’re assuming that file modified times are fixed…? Every piece of metadata like that can be altered. If you took a picture and posted it somewhere, I could take it and alter it to my liking, then add in some fake exif data as well as make it look like I modified the image before your actual original version.

          You can’t use any of that metadata to prove anything.

          • @SchmidtGenetics
            link
            English
            0
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            No, but it seems like you’re assuming they would look at this sandboxed by itself…? Of course there is more than one data point to look at, when you uploaded the image would noted, so even if you uploaded an image with older exif data, so what? The original poster would still have the original image, and the original image would have scraped and documented when it was hosted. So you host the image with fake data later, and it compares the two and sees that your fake one was posted 6 months later, it gets flagged like it should. And the original owner can claim authenticity.

            Metadata provides a trail and can be used with other data points to show authenticity when a bad actor appears for your image.

            You are apparently assuming to be looking at a single images exif data to determine what? Obviously they would use every image that looks similar or matches identical and use exif data to find the real one. As well as other mentioned methods.

            The only vector point is newly created images that haven’t been digitally signed, anything digitally signed can be verified as new, unless you go to extreme lengths to fake and image and than somehow recapture it with a digitally signed camera without it being detected fake by other methods….

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      No, the default should be removing everything but maybe the date because of privacy implications.

      • @SchmidtGenetics
        link
        English
        -3
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        include some EXIF data

        Thats what I said.

        Date, device, edited. That can all be included, location doesn’t need to be.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          The device is no more anyone else’s business than anything else.

          It should absolutely not be shared by default.

          • @SchmidtGenetics
            link
            English
            -32 months ago

            To prove the legibility of the image? It’s a great data point that’s pretty anonymous, they don’t need to include the Mac, sim, serial or other information.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 months ago

              A. It’s not even the weakest of weak evidence of whether a photo is legitimate. It tells you literally zero.

              B. Even if it was concrete proof, that would still be a truly disgusting reason to think you were entitled to that information.

              • @SchmidtGenetics
                link
                English
                -2
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                You can use metadata to prove an image is real, you can’t prove something is real without it, so it’s the only current option. It tells you a lot, you just don’t want people to know it apparently, but that doesn’t change it can be used to legitimatize an image.

                What’s disgusting about knowing if an image was taken on a Sony dslr, and Android or an iPhone? And entitled…? This is so you can prove your image is real? The hell you talking about here?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  No, you cannot use metadata as even extremely weak evidence that an image is real. It is less than trivial to fake, and the second anyone even hints at making it a standard approach, it will be on every photo anyone uses to mislead anyone.

                  Most photos on the internet are camera phones, and you absolutely are not entitled to know what phone someone has. Knowing someone’s phone has infinitely more value to fingerprinting a user than including metadata could ever theoretically have to demonstrate whether a photo is legitimate or not.

                  Photos without a specific, on record provenance from a credible source are no longer useful for evidence of anything. You cannot go back from that.

                  • @SchmidtGenetics
                    link
                    English
                    -2
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Meta data creates a string, if you want to claim ownership of an image and I show an image with earlier metadata, who’s is the real one? Yes it can be faked, but it can also be traced. Thats not a reason to not do something, the hell? That’s like suggesting you can’t police murders because someone can fake a murder.

                    What is identifiable about the type of phone you have…? Anyone that sees you in public has that information lmfao, there’s far more “fingerprintable” data in the exif than the device that anyone can visually see you have…… that’s the strangest privacy angle I’ve seen and you’re talking like it’s this big huge issue? I’ve asked you to explain and you haven’t, why is this?

                    And without that exif data you can’t prove any of that… you realize this… yeah…?

                    What is your point here? That you’re concerned that you might have someone knowing your phone? You realize you can scrub that information yourself if you’re not worried about proving authenticity…? Yeah…?