3 ms·
Couldn't the original copy of a video be sha256-hashed by, say, the recording equipment firmware itself, and then possibly time/date-proofed somehow (such as on
by pmarreck 4y ago
Couldn't the original copy of a video be sha256-hashed by, say, the recording equipment firmware itself, and then possibly time/date-proofed somehow (such as on, sigh, a blockchain)?
Is there a need for a service like this? (I've been looking for something interesting to build.)
- skybrian 4y agoThe general principle is called “chain of custody” [1] and it seems odd that it wasn’t mentioned in the article. Not a lawyer, but it normally doesn’t seem that rigorous? Someone testifies about how the video was recorded and stored, starting from the camera, to show that it’s unlikely to have been tampered with. So it seems like if it comes from a security camera and you can say how it was recorded then that’s good, but if it’s video found on social media and you don’t know who recorded it then that should count against it. I think before building anything, it might make sense to see what security cameras already do? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
- rcoder 4y agoSony, Nikon, and Canon already offer this for select "pro" cameras, specifically for law enforcement use. Having unforgeable signatures on every image-capture device just in case some output file could be submitted as evidence in a civil case would be a privacy and safety _nightmare_, OTOH.