The video is more widely accessible on YouTube https://youtube.com/watch?v=KvanHITPNEc

And we don't realize that we are the poor just because we can point to poorer people.

Which is basically Wilhoit's Law, an attempt to define conservatism.

edit: For those who don't want to look it up, Wilhoit's law is usually stated like this: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

FWIW I don't agree with Wilhoit, just explaining where the idea came from.

To back up stvltvs, the OP did more or less just use the one-liner as a zinger. "Protects but doesn't bind X, binds but doesn't protect Y" is the caricature, really. I'm sure you can find more floating examples on HN of it because it is a very lazy, midwit flex that signals the in-group the person spends too much time on the internet.

Because they know that many of our most intractable problems are primarily political, not technical. Climate disruption and peace in the Middle East for two examples. I don't expect an LLM to offer a workable plan for either. Would love to be wrong about that though.

Trump et al. being in control of US government data honestly feels like vikings have been put in charge of the Anglo-Saxon monasteries or Christian zealots in charge of the Library of Alexandria.

The idea is to be able to prove that a photo you took was captured by a camera, not generated. That would be helpful in the context of a disputed news story, a court case, etc.

Would that ever be relevant for a screenshot?

It's not massively helpful for a court case, IMO. This has been handled the same way since the invention of photography: ask the photographer to swear under oath they took the photo. (technically, laying a foundation for the evidence)

Yes in multiple ways, and there's probably more than this:

It's relevant that a screenshot doesn't have a signature, in the case that you want to remove any "proof" or tracking info from a real photo when uploading an image. Maybe I don't want people to know what brand/model of camera I use.

And it's relevant if a screenshot did have a signature if you want to "prove" that the screenshot itself hasn't been tampered with after the fact.

In the method proposed in the paper, the signature is stored in the pixels and ostensibly even survives some compression. So if you made a screenshot of a signed image, the image would still have its signature inside the screenshot, but the screenshot wouldn't have any (new) signature as a whole.

That's how I understood it at least.

I would assume you could make big enough differences in color/contrast/brightness and especially 3D rotation (similar to taking a photo of a screen) would make such a signature unreadable... but I would love to be proven wrong.

Signing the raw image data wouldn't require also signing the EXIF metadata. For privacy, you could later strip out everything except the raw image and the camera's signature and still prove that the image is unaltered.

What are you signing it with, though? A unique key that only exists on your device... so it will perfectly tie a photo to a specific camera.

Even if you didn't know who owned the camera, you could identify other pictures taken by that same camera, and information in those photos might let you figure out who owns the camera.

But you are signing it with your _private_ key, presumably. You know, the key that stays on your device and nobody knows?

That just means no one else can pretend they are you, but it also means they can know it HAS to be you.

If you sign two images with that private key, people will know for certain that you created both of them. This is the whole point of signing something. No one else can fake it because they don't have the private key, but EVERYONE can verify it because they DO have the public key. In fact, they don't even need the public key because they can extract it from the signature and the signed image.

I think he's saying the existence of a camera signature is the privacy issue maybe.

You can remove it all.

If authenticity later becomes an issue you can produce the original.

What if the camera doesn't give you an original but just a signed image?

from a signed image you can always extract just the image

I think some people are confused and think this is a watermark or something

As long as the barcode is not then used to reject delivery of ballots because a flawed federal voter verification system guesses the voters are illegitimate.

I have grave concerns about creating a single lever that will allow bad actors to steal elections.

Having to hijack a federal election commission is harder than taking over a few Republican Christian conservative districts.

Remember that is because of the FBI that black people in Georgia can vote.

To clarify, if the postal service can choose which ballots to deliver, then whoever controls the postal service has a powerful lever to suppress voters they don't like, especially those who have difficulty voting in person due to bad health, work obligations, distance to polling places, etc.

Nothing about the FEC.

Under the proposed rules, only the states would be able to determine who is eligible to vote. The postal service would not have discretion over which ones to deliver. If they failed to deliver any ballots then the tracking information for the ballots would show it right away.

That's not the story the whistleblower tells. The plan, for example, is to reject entire batches of ballots if a single ballot doesn't pass USPS's criteria.

Sure, that sounds scary. But the USPS’s criteria are all about the barcode, the envelope, etc. If the state cannot print envelopes that the USPS’s sorting machine can read then it will reject them. And if the very first one in a carton of mail is wrong, what are the odds any of the rest will be right?

> …a flawed federal voter verification system guesses the voters are illegitimate.

FWIW, the states don’t even know who is a citizen without verifying the registered voter’s information with the federal government. The federal government does not have to guess, since they are the source of truth.

You should have told them the required phone was missing from the box.

Funny I think of Perl as Bash with slightly saner syntax plus robust regexp. (said with love)

This is also fair.