3 ms·
A possible protection could be: person can emit, every N minutes, a high bit cryptographic checksum of the previous checksum plus the last N minutes of recorded
by Diederich 8y ago
A possible protection could be: person can emit, every N minutes, a high bit cryptographic checksum of the previous checksum plus the last N minutes of recorded video.
Send that value to the 'forever', public registry in the cloud, AKA some combo of Twitter, Facebook, GMail, FastMail, AliMail, etc.
To be fabricated, it would have to be done in something approaching real time. Not absolute safety, but a seemingly easy step in that direction.
- Nasrudith 8y agoI don't see how the addition of cryptography to image fabrication detection would be useful at all since it just tells you 'X key with Y data'. Yes the data may have come from this camera but what is stopping anyone from feeding in arbitrary data to be signed or extracting the key and applying it some place else? Attribution doesn't offer any proof in itself - which has us back to square one. Vast data-hoarding might be able to spot inconsistencies within supposed data - the equivalent of thousands of witnesses at a UN press conference proving that world leaders did no in fact take off their clothes and start dancing like strippers before the world. But if everything produces similarly consistent data from their cams - including metadata one could hypothetically get thousands of feeds from differing points of view displaying the infamous 22xx UN press conference lewd dance incident - collaborated by a blend of camera device keys. In the end it would come down to tautologies of trust.
- rauhl 8y agoSounds like an actual use for a blockchain! One could even commingle others’ checksum streams in order to make it even more difficult to rewrite history.
- Fjolsvith 8y agoThat would help prove you were with such and such person or not with them.