3 ms·

This here seems to be the only possible way forward, other than throwing out all concept of video evidence. All video streams (and frames) are signed / waterma

This here seems to be the only possible way forward, other than throwing out all concept of video evidence. All video streams (and frames) are signed / watermarked with the source that recorded them. Video editing now becomes impossible without showing a change in ownership. Unfortunately it will be a long number of decades until we can successfully replace the majority of cameras with these new ones that society doesn't yet have reason to understand the need for.

mirimir 9y ago
Strong authentication might protect video in news and court contexts. But I don't see how it'd help for celebrity porn, revenge porn, and other contexts where there is no authenticated original. Unless all the originals were authenticated. But that'd require mandatory authentication on all recording devices, which is rather frightening from a privacy perspective.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  > But that'd require mandatory authentication on all recording devices, which is rather frightening from a privacy perspective. Yes inherently scary, but is there a solution to still allow a user to maintain control as to when they give up their privacy? Ex. a 3rd party escrow service that will authenticate a video belongs to a user without revealing who the user is? Or some other key sharing scheme that allows users to decide when they want to take ownership of a whistle-blower video or some other govt corruption video in a repressive country? I'm not a public key crypto expert, but I can't imaging this is the first time user controlled authentication has been investigated. The requirement would be that everything is always signed, but (through key chaining, sharing...) a user gets to decide if they reveal their association to it.