1. Privacy & tracking concerns
Commenters warn that cryptographically signing images creates a new surveillance tool.
“So this whole idea basically doesn’t work – but we get a new stealth way to embed metadata in an image that can be used for tracking…” — xg15
“EXIF data is stripped for a good reason – because it can be a privacy hazard.” — xg15
“I still think this is a bad idea, because this all requires the images to have some sort of ID – and that seems like a prime target for tracking.” — xg15
2. Ease of circumvention
Many point out that signatures can be defeated by photographing screens, AI‑generated pictures, screenshots, or hacked firmware.
“For example, a screen attack still works: photograph a screen displaying an AI image and you get a signed photo of a fake.” — xg15
“Even easier is to just take a picture of an AI‑generated picture.” — TedDoesntTalk
“There will always be a way around it… open‑source alternative/hacked firmwares for professional DSLR cameras where tampering with the signing may be possible.” — ranger_danger
3. Potential utility for authenticity
Despite flaws, the approach is seen as useful in high‑stakes contexts where proving an image’s origin matters.
“In the contexts where you need to prove an image is a real unaltered photograph (court cases, news media, science, etc) privacy is usually not a concern.” — hamdingers
“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.” — stvltvs
“Even if it’s flawed, adding any friction at all to the effort of deception is a positive step.” — mandolingual