5 ms·

Content creators signing their content with a private key would be a better idea. How would that help? Wouldn't the copier simply sign with their own key? May

Content creators signing their content with a private key would be a better idea. How would that help? Wouldn't the copier simply sign with their own key? Maybe Google should run a timestamping service. It could be stateless: send an hash of the content, get it back timestamped and signed, then include it in the page before publishing it.

jacquesm 8y ago
They could, but it would not be registered before the other one would be. - create signature - post signature, possibly publicly, (wow, maybe an actual use for a blockchain) - post content Anybody copying it could be proven to be a copyist.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Right, you'd need something like the blockchain - ie, a timestamping server - to validate the posting date. But then you don't need a signature, just a hash. The advantage of using Google's timestamping service is that it wouldn't need to store the hash/signature, unlike the blockchain.
  - Boulth 8y ago
    No, you don't need blockchain for that, just a good old RFC 3161 timestamping server, most big CAs run one and timestamp stuff for free. Actually secure timestamping is already used by Windows to verify software signatures, even when the signing key expires: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/47289/how-is-an-authenticode-timestamp-verified https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/47289/how-is-an... Heck, you can even use Roughtime [0] to achieve secure timestamping as it uses digital signatures and allows you to provide a nonce. Even the design doc [1] mentions this use case: > This means that Roughtime replies can be used as a time-stamping service, and thus that Roughtime servers can be used to check each other. [0]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/roughtime/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/roughtime/ [1]: https://roughtime.googlesource.com/roughtime https://roughtime.googlesource.com/roughtime
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  - Change "a" to "а", hash changed - ... - Profit?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    The hash is just to identify the individual article, so it can be timestamped. Google would still use its existing algorithms to decide if the two articles are copies or not.
  - Natanael_L 8y ago
    The publication of the hash proves who came first (to the timestamping service). Content comparison can be done by other means than the hash.

jacquesm 8y ago

They could, but it would not be registered before the other one would be. - create signature - post signature, possibly publicly, (wow, maybe an actual use for a blockchain) - post content Anybody copying it could be proven to be a copyist.

icebraining 8y ago
Right, you'd need something like the blockchain - ie, a timestamping server - to validate the posting date. But then you don't need a signature, just a hash. The advantage of using Google's timestamping service is that it wouldn't need to store the hash/signature, unlike the blockchain.
- Boulth 8y ago
  No, you don't need blockchain for that, just a good old RFC 3161 timestamping server, most big CAs run one and timestamp stuff for free. Actually secure timestamping is already used by Windows to verify software signatures, even when the signing key expires: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/47289/how-is-an-authenticode-timestamp-verified https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/47289/how-is-an... Heck, you can even use Roughtime [0] to achieve secure timestamping as it uses digital signatures and allows you to provide a nonce. Even the design doc [1] mentions this use case: > This means that Roughtime replies can be used as a time-stamping service, and thus that Roughtime servers can be used to check each other. [0]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/roughtime/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/roughtime/ [1]: https://roughtime.googlesource.com/roughtime https://roughtime.googlesource.com/roughtime
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
JetSpiegel 8y ago
- Change "a" to "а", hash changed - ... - Profit?
- icebraining 8y ago
  The hash is just to identify the individual article, so it can be timestamped. Google would still use its existing algorithms to decide if the two articles are copies or not.
- Natanael_L 8y ago
  The publication of the hash proves who came first (to the timestamping service). Content comparison can be done by other means than the hash.