This is so stupid. This makes it like, a thousand times harder to fake a photo than it would otherwise be. You pedants imagining a way to fake it doesn't change that.

> This makes it like, a thousand times harder to fake a photo than it would otherwise be.

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.

> Whether it actually meaningfully increases the difficulty of a forgery remains to be seen.

Then maybe let’s save those criticisms until this is in the hands of knowledgeable people who can actually test? I mean, I’m no fan of the direction Apple has gone under Tim Cook, but all else being equal I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they may have thought this through over the time it took to build more than a random person speculating on HN who just read a blog post for the first time.

> (…) we see no details here about what scene information is used.

And you assume that everything in a post is the sum total of how it works?

> It increases the potential value of a forgery

By that token, should we also not be adding forgery deterrents to ID cards and bills? After all, if you can fake the preventive measures, “it increases the potential value of a forgery”.

You worry that a technology that you have never used nor evaluated might not work in practice...

Therefore because of your worry (which is based on remarkably little information), it's a bad technology?

Come the fuck on. That's beyond luddite bullshit.

> because of your worry (which is based on remarkably little information)

You must be new around here. ;-)