4 ms·
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 refe
by 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 agoWell, 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.