3 ms·

I think we’ll probably have to move to a model where any security footage or images that is used in court must be digitally signed at the hardware level, with a

I think we’ll probably have to move to a model where any security footage or images that is used in court must be digitally signed at the hardware level, with a verification process similar to how CAs work now. Of course, this will still be tamperable, but tampering would have to be much more premeditated and sophisticated.

omeid2 9y ago
The privacy implications of that would be scary. It seems on par with North Korea's Red Star Watermarking which has been dubbed as "dictator’s wet dream". https://qz.com/583311/north-koreas-dissident-tracking-computer-software-is-a-dictators-wet-dream/ https://qz.com/583311/north-koreas-dissident-tracking-comput...
throwaway2048 9y ago
that is absolutely never going to be workable because you can just film another video being played back.
- nine_k 9y ago
  I can imagine watermarking at the light sensor level. It would need some very special provisions for compression, though.
  - striking 9y ago
    Well, but then you'd have to trust the light sensor manufacturer to provide secure keys. Remember when the NSA hacked into Gemalto and had a chance to steal its SIM card keys? However, that's still interesting; isn't it possible that each light sensor has certain watermark-like characteristics arising from the manufacturing process?
    - c22 9y ago
      Yes, fingerprinting of digital cameras has been a thing for at least a decade [https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/bu-bur041806.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/bu-bur041806...]
  - sametmax 9y ago
    Problem is, this way journalists won't have anonymous sources anymore and you will be able to track any citizen filming power abuses.
- beisner 9y ago
  I mean, there are all kinds of ways to bound uncertainty. You’re right, you could film another camera, but that could be addressed separately. Digital signing would only prove that a video came directly from a particular camera’s sensors. To assert the veracity of a video, you’d then have to prove that particular camera was at the scene, and the light coming into the lens was authentic. Most court footage is incidental, not intentional, so the sort of doctoring you describe is unlikely in a majority of cases. Where it is likely, different measures could be taken to bound uncertainty. Separately, generating false images or videos for libel purposes would become more difficult; if a camera that has never been owned by a person is used to produce a signed video that is pornographic in nature, the authenticity of that video is immediately suspect. It would take a much more sophisticated attack to produce a mathematically convincing fake video.
  - throwaway2048 9y ago
    if you are worried about somebody actively faking footage, and are willing to go to such drastic DRM measures to prevent it, you need to explain how it is actually going to solve the problem, not just handwave.

omeid2 9y ago

The privacy implications of that would be scary. It seems on par with North Korea's Red Star Watermarking which has been dubbed as "dictator’s wet dream". https://qz.com/583311/north-koreas-dissident-tracking-computer-software-is-a-dictators-wet-dream/ https://qz.com/583311/north-koreas-dissident-tracking-comput...

throwaway2048 9y ago

that is absolutely never going to be workable because you can just film another video being played back.

nine_k 9y ago
I can imagine watermarking at the light sensor level. It would need some very special provisions for compression, though.
- striking 9y ago
  Well, but then you'd have to trust the light sensor manufacturer to provide secure keys. Remember when the NSA hacked into Gemalto and had a chance to steal its SIM card keys? However, that's still interesting; isn't it possible that each light sensor has certain watermark-like characteristics arising from the manufacturing process?
  - c22 9y ago
    Yes, fingerprinting of digital cameras has been a thing for at least a decade [https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/bu-bur041806.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/bu-bur041806...]
- sametmax 9y ago
  Problem is, this way journalists won't have anonymous sources anymore and you will be able to track any citizen filming power abuses.
beisner 9y ago
I mean, there are all kinds of ways to bound uncertainty. You’re right, you could film another camera, but that could be addressed separately. Digital signing would only prove that a video came directly from a particular camera’s sensors. To assert the veracity of a video, you’d then have to prove that particular camera was at the scene, and the light coming into the lens was authentic. Most court footage is incidental, not intentional, so the sort of doctoring you describe is unlikely in a majority of cases. Where it is likely, different measures could be taken to bound uncertainty. Separately, generating false images or videos for libel purposes would become more difficult; if a camera that has never been owned by a person is used to produce a signed video that is pornographic in nature, the authenticity of that video is immediately suspect. It would take a much more sophisticated attack to produce a mathematically convincing fake video.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  if you are worried about somebody actively faking footage, and are willing to go to such drastic DRM measures to prevent it, you need to explain how it is actually going to solve the problem, not just handwave.