3 ms·
The important part there would be chain of trust. You should be able to see, given a video, "oh, that was recorded by some guy who lives in a basement; I can fi
by dylan-m 7y ago
The important part there would be chain of trust. You should be able to see, given a video, "oh, that was recorded by some guy who lives in a basement; I can figure out he was never even /near/ Washington" (or "that doesn't have a signature. What is this, 2019?!") and treat it accordingly. It means you need to give up your own identity if you want to publicly verify that a video you've captured is yours, but that's kind of the point. Anonymity is great, but it isn't a source of trustworthy information. Never has been, never will be, and now we have the math to say it.
So basically GPG for cameras, but with a hip startup name? Maybe any camera would ship with its own private key out of the box, and there'd need to be some kind of key rotation as well as a way to push your public keys … somewhere(s). I guess an attack here is somebody could lift a private key from someone else's camera and use that key to sign their fakes, but at least that's a reasonably tangible sort of attack that people know how to protect against.
(And of course we'll never stop people from watching 24/7 news every minute of the day, so we're all doomed anyway).
- Cpoll 7y agoBut at most you can prove which camera shot a picture, and its original owner... Kind of, because there's nothing stopping a photo agency from signing the pictures after they're taken, in order to anonymize their contributors. So, if I want to fake a picture and make it a bit more convincing, I only need to get my hands on a few cameras from pawn shops in Washington. I just can't say "this is a Reuters photo" or "this is a banned commercial" or whatever.