3 ms·

Didn’t read all the details, but isn’t the point of this thing to store the original in a publicly accessible storage system (storj and filecoin is mentioned).

by meling 3y ago

Didn’t read all the details, but isn’t the point of this thing to store the original in a publicly accessible storage system (storj and filecoin is mentioned). There should not be a need to involve Canon or a third party. This is for verifying published photos after all.

akoboldfrying 3y ago
The main point is to prove -- to you, or to any interested third party -- that the photo in the news story currently open in your browser came from a particular bunch of raw pixels from a particular camera via a series of edits done by particular people, with the identities of both the camera and all the editors being recorded in that final browser JPEG in such a way that their involvement can't later be denied by those parties. The reasoning is that this traceability will make photographers and photo distributors more responsible due to the threat of reputational damage if they're discovered to be up to something. The technical magic is in a (pretty old, pretty basic) crypto primitive called a digital signature, which doesn't actually require storing the originals publicly at all times -- all that's needed for you to verify Canon/Reuters's claim of photo authenticity is for them to supply the original raw pixels when someone "sufficiently important" (maybe you, or maybe a court judge, etc.) demands it. You can then check whether what they give you is in fact the true original by verifying it algorithmically with the JPEG's signature and their public key. Storing the original in a publicly accessible place is good but kind of secondary -- it's just the most straightforward and convenient way for them to "produce it on demand". EDIT: Clarified "their signature and public key"
- meling 3y ago
  Huh! I know all this from a technical point of view. I was meaning to ask what they are actually doing, since it seemed like the people on this thread were referring to judges and talking to Canon and so forth. It would be a pain to have to go to the courts to verify the authenticity of every photo, and the technical choices seems to indicate that they would publish also the original. It doesn’t make sense to me to keep the original private, except for when they need to blur or sensor parts of a photo for the privacy of people in it or depiction of violence. In those situations it would be reasonable to keep a photo private and go through the courts to verify a photo’s authenticity, but that would not be necessary for all photos.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    Well, it's in Canon's interests to appear to be as open and transparent as possible about this, so I expect they would not only make the originals publicly available but also make the process of verifying as frictionless as possible -- maybe even make a phone app or browser extension to do it. I'm just saying that that's technically more than what's required for someone to trust their claim. OTOH, yes, privacy and upsetting content are reasons why they might hold some (or all) back from Joe Public and only provide the bits to someone more authoritative.

by meling 3y ago

akoboldfrying 3y ago

The main point is to prove -- to you, or to any interested third party -- that the photo in the news story currently open in your browser came from a particular bunch of raw pixels from a particular camera via a series of edits done by particular people, with the identities of both the camera and all the editors being recorded in that final browser JPEG in such a way that their involvement can't later be denied by those parties. The reasoning is that this traceability will make photographers and photo distributors more responsible due to the threat of reputational damage if they're discovered to be up to something. The technical magic is in a (pretty old, pretty basic) crypto primitive called a digital signature, which doesn't actually require storing the originals publicly at all times -- all that's needed for you to verify Canon/Reuters's claim of photo authenticity is for them to supply the original raw pixels when someone "sufficiently important" (maybe you, or maybe a court judge, etc.) demands it. You can then check whether what they give you is in fact the true original by verifying it algorithmically with the JPEG's signature and their public key. Storing the original in a publicly accessible place is good but kind of secondary -- it's just the most straightforward and convenient way for them to "produce it on demand". EDIT: Clarified "their signature and public key"

meling 3y ago
Huh! I know all this from a technical point of view. I was meaning to ask what they are actually doing, since it seemed like the people on this thread were referring to judges and talking to Canon and so forth. It would be a pain to have to go to the courts to verify the authenticity of every photo, and the technical choices seems to indicate that they would publish also the original. It doesn’t make sense to me to keep the original private, except for when they need to blur or sensor parts of a photo for the privacy of people in it or depiction of violence. In those situations it would be reasonable to keep a photo private and go through the courts to verify a photo’s authenticity, but that would not be necessary for all photos.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  Well, it's in Canon's interests to appear to be as open and transparent as possible about this, so I expect they would not only make the originals publicly available but also make the process of verifying as frictionless as possible -- maybe even make a phone app or browser extension to do it. I'm just saying that that's technically more than what's required for someone to trust their claim. OTOH, yes, privacy and upsetting content are reasons why they might hold some (or all) back from Joe Public and only provide the bits to someone more authoritative.