4 ms·
>If you can sign a video then you can sign a doctored video. I don't understand your point, you wouldn't sign a doctored video unless you wanted to do so. It'
by tyrust 7y ago
>If you can sign a video then you can sign a doctored video.
I don't understand your point, you wouldn't sign a doctored video unless you wanted to do so. It's entirely possible to apply the principles of PGP to video.
>If it's only your camera that can sign the video, not you directly, don't be fooled that it will be possible to protect the private keys in the camera from extraction.
I doubt this would be the solution on which the world settles.
- astrodust 7y agoIf you can sign anything then what purpose does a signature serve?
- tyrust 7y agoYou only sign what you want to sign. When you publish a video of you speaking at a public event, you sign it. When someone else publishes a doctored video of you, you do not sign it. This alone doesn't protect you in the case that someone speaks and then later intentionally doctors and signs the video in order to change what they said. In this case trusted third parties (e.g. news organizations) could sign videos as well. A set of signatures taken together can provide trust.
- astrodust 7y agoThat's not how this works though. If I want to post video clamining someone did something, I sign it, but what does this prove? Nothing.
- anigbrowl 7y agoIt's not supposed to validate the truthfulness of the content, why would you think that was the purpose?
- tyrust 7y agoWell yeah, because you aren't the subject of the video and you have no reputation. You wouldn't think a letter from your mom is from your mom unless your mom signed it.