5 ms·

Would it be possible to content providers to send a URL to Google basically saying I made this, here's a timestamp to prove that you actually released it first,

by m-p-3 8y ago

Would it be possible to content providers to send a URL to Google basically saying I made this, here's a timestamp to prove that you actually released it first, and whoever copies it and backdate it won't have any reliable proof they actually did publish it first? Whenever I publish something I made, I submit the URL to the Wayback Machine so if it gets hugged to death at least there's a public copy somewhere else.

chii 8y ago
> I made this, here's a timestamp to prove... a timestamp can't prove anything. What stops somebody else from copying your content, but timestamping it earlier and submitting it as proof? How can google verify it? In fact, google may have an incentive to allow this - since those scammy sites may actually be using google ads, while legit sites may have their own ad-nework which google may not be part of...
- nielsole 8y ago
  By having the timestamp be signed by a trusted party. Either a single entity or e.g. the blockchain
  - cheeze 8y ago
    I agree that would be a potential solution but it's too far removed from reality to even be a consideration imo. You'd need some sort of negative affirmation as well. "when I published this article, searching for it yielded nothing" signed by a trusted party would be a stronger statement. But no clue how you actually do that.
  - smelendez 8y ago
    This is basically the purpose of copyright registration and filing your work with the Library of Congress
  - Too 8y ago
    Even if the third party reliably proves your article is published october 1, what prevents the scammer from publishing an article with a fake date of june 21 on plain www-internet? It's not like the scammer is going to publish the article hash on any block chain. Something like this can only work if all news publishers always publish the article hash and those that don't will simply not get crawled and not be valid as proof in DMCA takedowns.
- Natanael_L 8y ago
  Timestamp before you publish.
jcoffland 8y ago
Yes, but not with Google. This can be done with the Bitcoin blockchain. Before you groan, hear me out. You can submit a transaction which contains a hash of your content. Once it's on the blockchain you can prove that the content was created no later than the date of the transaction.
- cheeze 8y ago
  .. Which does nothing against a backdated article. What stops me from copying a NYT article and posting it to the blockchain a few hours after, claiming it's mine? What makes the bitcoin blockchain good for this? The bitcoin blockchain is good for posting transactions within the bitcoin network and kind of a shitty solution for "a generic blockchain" Why a blockchain at all? Why not just a merkle tree? Surely there is somewhere better than the bitcoin blockchain for this. CT logging isn't done on the bitcoin blockchain for a reason. So sure, you can prove that something wasn't created after the date of the transaction (assuming you're using a CS hashing function), but for this to work in this specific context, you'd need every publisher to be posting transactions to this log. If I post an article and post a hash to $genericBlockchainWhichIsReallyJustAMerkleTree, what prevents someone from copying, backdating, and saying that I copied them? That they didn't post to the log as well?
  - dubhrosa 8y ago
    Agree that bitcoin blockchain is unnecessary, but isn't there some merit in the idea that all major publishers in a juristiction would opt-in to posting to a single chain? Given the potential legal cost savings it would seem to be at least somewhat feasible.
    - cheeze 8y ago
      Oh absolutely. But I don't know how much of a "blockchain" that really is depending on how you define it. When I think blockchain, I think miners/proof of work/etc. Is a CT log a blockchain? Because really what we're talking about here is a signed ledger which may be decentralized but very well may be centralized as well.
  - 8y ago
Animats 8y ago
There are many secure RFC 3161 timestamping services. You send them a hash, they timestamp and sign it and send it back. Some services are free, some cost money. Unfortunately, there's no way to express timestamps of web pages in a form Google understands. And it would only be meaningful for static pages, anyway.

by m-p-3 8y ago

chii 8y ago

> I made this, here's a timestamp to prove... a timestamp can't prove anything. What stops somebody else from copying your content, but timestamping it earlier and submitting it as proof? How can google verify it? In fact, google may have an incentive to allow this - since those scammy sites may actually be using google ads, while legit sites may have their own ad-nework which google may not be part of...

nielsole 8y ago
By having the timestamp be signed by a trusted party. Either a single entity or e.g. the blockchain
- cheeze 8y ago
  I agree that would be a potential solution but it's too far removed from reality to even be a consideration imo. You'd need some sort of negative affirmation as well. "when I published this article, searching for it yielded nothing" signed by a trusted party would be a stronger statement. But no clue how you actually do that.
- smelendez 8y ago
  This is basically the purpose of copyright registration and filing your work with the Library of Congress
- Too 8y ago
  Even if the third party reliably proves your article is published october 1, what prevents the scammer from publishing an article with a fake date of june 21 on plain www-internet? It's not like the scammer is going to publish the article hash on any block chain. Something like this can only work if all news publishers always publish the article hash and those that don't will simply not get crawled and not be valid as proof in DMCA takedowns.
Natanael_L 8y ago
Timestamp before you publish.

jcoffland 8y ago

Yes, but not with Google. This can be done with the Bitcoin blockchain. Before you groan, hear me out. You can submit a transaction which contains a hash of your content. Once it's on the blockchain you can prove that the content was created no later than the date of the transaction.

cheeze 8y ago
.. Which does nothing against a backdated article. What stops me from copying a NYT article and posting it to the blockchain a few hours after, claiming it's mine? What makes the bitcoin blockchain good for this? The bitcoin blockchain is good for posting transactions within the bitcoin network and kind of a shitty solution for "a generic blockchain" Why a blockchain at all? Why not just a merkle tree? Surely there is somewhere better than the bitcoin blockchain for this. CT logging isn't done on the bitcoin blockchain for a reason. So sure, you can prove that something wasn't created after the date of the transaction (assuming you're using a CS hashing function), but for this to work in this specific context, you'd need every publisher to be posting transactions to this log. If I post an article and post a hash to $genericBlockchainWhichIsReallyJustAMerkleTree, what prevents someone from copying, backdating, and saying that I copied them? That they didn't post to the log as well?
- dubhrosa 8y ago
  Agree that bitcoin blockchain is unnecessary, but isn't there some merit in the idea that all major publishers in a juristiction would opt-in to posting to a single chain? Given the potential legal cost savings it would seem to be at least somewhat feasible.
  - cheeze 8y ago
    Oh absolutely. But I don't know how much of a "blockchain" that really is depending on how you define it. When I think blockchain, I think miners/proof of work/etc. Is a CT log a blockchain? Because really what we're talking about here is a signed ledger which may be decentralized but very well may be centralized as well.
- 8y ago

Animats 8y ago

There are many secure RFC 3161 timestamping services. You send them a hash, they timestamp and sign it and send it back. Some services are free, some cost money. Unfortunately, there's no way to express timestamps of web pages in a form Google understands. And it would only be meaningful for static pages, anyway.