3 ms·

I do not get that point of view. You still need to trust the intention behind whatever is cryptographicly verified. You will never have a verification of what h

I do not get that point of view. You still need to trust the intention behind whatever is cryptographicly verified. You will never have a verification of what happens inside of someone's skull (or for the scifi counter arguments: inside of whatever else they store their thoughts in). Having cryptography without trust in some form of desire for teamwork in your fellow humans defeats the whole purpose of cryptography... But I admit this is more about my ideology and reasonable people can disagree about it.

kakarot 8y ago
I just hope we can figure out a way to create watermarks, like maybe some kind of hash sum incorporating an asymmetric key which is injected by the camera / device, which can provide verification of source and which cannot be overwritten. Possibly could involve some kind of blockchain tech similar to https://proofofexistence.com https://proofofexistence.com. It doesn't solve all of the problems but at least we can begin establishing a record of source. The point is, something needs to be done to augment the trust we have in journalists because it's easy to trick or buy people out.
- krastanov 8y ago
  You really do not need anything that complicated (definitely not a block chain, when you only need the merkle tree). All of this is exactly what cryptographic signatures are for, a tech that is decades old. And as mentioned in the above comments, it does not help with analog loopholes and trust in the person being photographed.
  - kakarot 8y ago
    The blockchain provides an immutable public record. Yes, not necessary but still an interesting approach and actually a decent fit for a blockchain. A blockchain might still be an over fit but it's useful if I claim to have an undoctored video at a certain point in time but don't want to release it, immediately, and need a distributed way to validate that claim. > And as mentioned in the above comments, it does not help with analog loopholes and trust in the person being photographed. Like I said in my above comment, it doesn't solve all of the problems but at least we can begin establishing a record of source.
    - krastanov 8y ago
      I am pretty sure that what you are calling a block chain is actually just a single hash or at most a Merkle tree. You do not need a consensus algorithm (PoW or PoS or whatever), i.e. you do not need a block chain if all you want is decentralized verification of a current or future publication.
      - kakarot 8y ago
        I was just making an arbitrary suggestion based on previous work by proofofexistence.com. I didn't suggest it was the only way or the best way forward. I realize that people all the time try to say "Blockchain would be great for ____" so you're probably a little hypersensitive and I get that, but the suggestion of a blockchain was arbitrary and tangential to the real point of my post, so I don't really feel like getting into it right now.

kakarot 8y ago

I just hope we can figure out a way to create watermarks, like maybe some kind of hash sum incorporating an asymmetric key which is injected by the camera / device, which can provide verification of source and which cannot be overwritten. Possibly could involve some kind of blockchain tech similar to https://proofofexistence.com https://proofofexistence.com. It doesn't solve all of the problems but at least we can begin establishing a record of source. The point is, something needs to be done to augment the trust we have in journalists because it's easy to trick or buy people out.

krastanov 8y ago
You really do not need anything that complicated (definitely not a block chain, when you only need the merkle tree). All of this is exactly what cryptographic signatures are for, a tech that is decades old. And as mentioned in the above comments, it does not help with analog loopholes and trust in the person being photographed.
- kakarot 8y ago
  The blockchain provides an immutable public record. Yes, not necessary but still an interesting approach and actually a decent fit for a blockchain. A blockchain might still be an over fit but it's useful if I claim to have an undoctored video at a certain point in time but don't want to release it, immediately, and need a distributed way to validate that claim. > And as mentioned in the above comments, it does not help with analog loopholes and trust in the person being photographed. Like I said in my above comment, it doesn't solve all of the problems but at least we can begin establishing a record of source.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    I am pretty sure that what you are calling a block chain is actually just a single hash or at most a Merkle tree. You do not need a consensus algorithm (PoW or PoS or whatever), i.e. you do not need a block chain if all you want is decentralized verification of a current or future publication.
    - kakarot 8y ago
      I was just making an arbitrary suggestion based on previous work by proofofexistence.com. I didn't suggest it was the only way or the best way forward. I realize that people all the time try to say "Blockchain would be great for ____" so you're probably a little hypersensitive and I get that, but the suggestion of a blockchain was arbitrary and tangential to the real point of my post, so I don't really feel like getting into it right now.