4 ms·

Why not just have the device occasionally send sha256 sums of chunks to a third party service, like Twitter tweets, where it's clear you can't forge the date of

by Jach 4y ago

Why not just have the device occasionally send sha256 sums of chunks to a third party service, like Twitter tweets, where it's clear you can't forge the date of the message? If you need to produce some chunks, the matching hashes provide an independent time stamp showing you didn't just produce the content at any time. This sort of trick is already commonly done to demonstrate prior knowledge of something at a later point in time without having to reveal it just yet (if ever).

ramblerman 4y ago
Great idea, but are courts tech savvy enough to accept this already? Even with a tech expert to explain it, I worry the opposition would just get their own expert and make a whole mess of it, confusing both the judge and jury enough to cast doubt. Perhaps I have a very wrong view on how both such evidence is presented and accepted though.
- Jach 4y ago
  Courts are generally more tech savvy than techies like to give them credit for. But it's worth mentioning that in recent years several US states have already passed legislation expressly forbidding courts from denying such evidence (even/especially if put on Blockchains rather than a more traditional non-decentralized network/database), and you can find similar stuff in other countries around the world (even China). And of course in lower courts (like small claims) or even mediation the standards are a lot looser, there's not even a jury. If you want a more thorough view of the rules in the US (which states deviate from to some extent), you might like to browse https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
xyzzy123 4y ago
You could queue it up to send chunks of reassuring alibi video (or checksums of same) while you are doing your murders or crimes. Put another way, the possibility that you could have done that renders the timestamping useless.
- Jach 4y ago
  f4d4cb1c06b690f5d6ee5d9012f743c330511effdb24e55b04e602f87d38d89e I could have produced this hash at any point in the past, but after HN's edit window expires, one can be very certain I did not originally produce it at any point after the timestamp. This is far from useless, even if it doesn't cover all possible objections. The objection in the original comment that it does cover is: you just made up this footage/other evidence post-hoc to establish an alibi now that you've been accused, as people frequently do, or you can't prove you didn't make it up post-hoc so we want to get it tossed out as non-reliable.

by Jach 4y ago

ramblerman 4y ago

Great idea, but are courts tech savvy enough to accept this already? Even with a tech expert to explain it, I worry the opposition would just get their own expert and make a whole mess of it, confusing both the judge and jury enough to cast doubt. Perhaps I have a very wrong view on how both such evidence is presented and accepted though.

Jach 4y ago
Courts are generally more tech savvy than techies like to give them credit for. But it's worth mentioning that in recent years several US states have already passed legislation expressly forbidding courts from denying such evidence (even/especially if put on Blockchains rather than a more traditional non-decentralized network/database), and you can find similar stuff in other countries around the world (even China). And of course in lower courts (like small claims) or even mediation the standards are a lot looser, there's not even a jury. If you want a more thorough view of the rules in the US (which states deviate from to some extent), you might like to browse https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

xyzzy123 4y ago

You could queue it up to send chunks of reassuring alibi video (or checksums of same) while you are doing your murders or crimes. Put another way, the possibility that you could have done that renders the timestamping useless.

Jach 4y ago
f4d4cb1c06b690f5d6ee5d9012f743c330511effdb24e55b04e602f87d38d89e I could have produced this hash at any point in the past, but after HN's edit window expires, one can be very certain I did not originally produce it at any point after the timestamp. This is far from useless, even if it doesn't cover all possible objections. The objection in the original comment that it does cover is: you just made up this footage/other evidence post-hoc to establish an alibi now that you've been accused, as people frequently do, or you can't prove you didn't make it up post-hoc so we want to get it tossed out as non-reliable.