3 ms·
Sounds like an invasion of privacy. Your personal pictures and videos shouldn’t have a unique digital signature so the police or a bad actor can identify which
by byteshock 7y ago
Sounds like an invasion of privacy. Your personal pictures and videos shouldn’t have a unique digital signature so the police or a bad actor can identify which device it was taken on.
This seems like a good idea at first but what about whistleblowers or informants?
- AndrewDucker 7y agoWouldn't have to tie it back to you. It would be enough to say "Canon affirms this photo was taken directly on a model X". Which would then tell you that this was the unedited photo and could be trusted.
- rumanator 7y ago> Sounds like an invasion of privacy. Your personal pictures and videos shouldn’t have a unique digital signature so the police or a bad actor can identify which device it was taken on. You've misunderstood the point. The goal is not to identify users. The goal is to sign messages to ensure they were actually outputted by a service.
- bzzzt 7y agoYou mean like how it's done with printers? https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-d...