|
|
|
|
|
|
by dns_snek
812 days ago
|
|
|
That was an interesting rabbit hole of articles, thanks. From an earlier article: [1] > At FotoForensics, I'm already seeing known fraud groups developing test pictures with C2PA metadata. (If C2PA was more widely adopted, I'm certain that some of these groups would deploy their forgeries right now.) > To reiterate: > * Without C2PA: Analysis tools can often identify forgeries, including altered metadata. > * With C2PA: Identifying forgeries becomes much harder. You have to convince the audience that valid, verifiable, tamper-evident 'authentication and provenance' that uses a cryptographic signature, and was created with the backing of big tech companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Intel, etc., is wrong. > Rather than eliminating or identifying fraud, C2PA enables a new type of fraud: forgeries that are authenticated by trust and associated with some of the biggest names on the tech landscape. [1] https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1013-C... |
|
|