4 ms·
They need to do no such thing. They never need to access the key, or anything remotely like it. They do need to push other images from where the sensor would b
by myrryr 4y ago
They need to do no such thing. They never need to access the key, or anything remotely like it.
They do need to push other images from where the sensor would be :).
And is it better than nothing? I think having having which people may treat ad evidence which is trivial to fake is worse than something which people won't treat as evidence
- ChrisLomont 4y ago>They do need to push other images from where the sensor would be :). Yes, taking a new photo. However, a photo of a photo is going to show artifacts in the frequency spectrum that should not be difficult to detect. So they cannot edit a picture, even trying to feed it back into the sensor. And. if the signing is built into the die of the sensor, it would take incredible resources to even attempt to feed new data into the sensor grid itself, tech vastly beyond anyone but a nation state. >I think having having which people may treat ad evidence which is trivial to fake is worse than something which people won't treat as evidence So you're against police body cams, because everyday people might be faking all the bad police interactions? Because all cameras I've looked into would be easier to tamper with than one designed with signed images that's done well.