3 ms·

Would photos signed in that way need to be immutable or could they be changed? (White balance, contrast, saturation, etc.) If they need to be immutable, isn’t

by nequo 3y ago

Would photos signed in that way need to be immutable or could they be changed? (White balance, contrast, saturation, etc.) If they need to be immutable, isn’t it easier to use ordinary asymmetric cryptography? Given that the Intel Management Engine is still a black box to us, perhaps the private key could be obfuscated well enough in the camera that it cannot be recovered by adversaries. If the concern is that the private key could be reverse engineered by an adversary, then how does a blockchain-based method circumvent such an attack?

keiferski 3y ago
I am imagining something like this: - Camera manufacturers all agree to implement blockchain record on photos produced with their devices. This includes smartphones (iPhones, etc.) as well. They publish this to a public blockchain. - Image editing tools like Photoshop develop a way to maintain the blockchain record of edits made and publish to the same public record. This is not substantially different from the way document verification works already. - Social media sites use the same record to flag or otherwise mark images that are not verified. This seems complex, I know, but if the alternative is that anyone, anywhere can create fake images at the push of a button, a verification solution like the one I've proposed will be necessary, whether it utilizes blockchain or not. It may turn out that we just end up trusting corporations to handle this, without requiring any sort of public records like blockchains. Security issues at the camera level might be a problem, but realistically the vast majority of camera devices (including phones) are made by a handful of companies and I don't foresee this being that much of an issue.
- macNchz 3y ago
  Much more likely that if camera manufacturers decided to do this, they would each offer a their own proprietary and incompatible image verification scheme, forcing implementations to integrate with many different services. Eventually recognizing the problem, they would form a Trusted Imagery Working Group™ to develop a patent-encumbered chip that would need to be licensed for use (available only to invited member organizations), and present in all devices that will create or validate image signatures. Keys from that chip will eventually be extracted, rendering it useless, but industry will be widely reliant on it, with too much inertia to change.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Very true and likely, but it doesn't change the fact that blockchain would be a potential solution to this problem.

by nequo 3y ago

keiferski 3y ago

I am imagining something like this: - Camera manufacturers all agree to implement blockchain record on photos produced with their devices. This includes smartphones (iPhones, etc.) as well. They publish this to a public blockchain. - Image editing tools like Photoshop develop a way to maintain the blockchain record of edits made and publish to the same public record. This is not substantially different from the way document verification works already. - Social media sites use the same record to flag or otherwise mark images that are not verified. This seems complex, I know, but if the alternative is that anyone, anywhere can create fake images at the push of a button, a verification solution like the one I've proposed will be necessary, whether it utilizes blockchain or not. It may turn out that we just end up trusting corporations to handle this, without requiring any sort of public records like blockchains. Security issues at the camera level might be a problem, but realistically the vast majority of camera devices (including phones) are made by a handful of companies and I don't foresee this being that much of an issue.

macNchz 3y ago
Much more likely that if camera manufacturers decided to do this, they would each offer a their own proprietary and incompatible image verification scheme, forcing implementations to integrate with many different services. Eventually recognizing the problem, they would form a Trusted Imagery Working Group™ to develop a patent-encumbered chip that would need to be licensed for use (available only to invited member organizations), and present in all devices that will create or validate image signatures. Keys from that chip will eventually be extracted, rendering it useless, but industry will be widely reliant on it, with too much inertia to change.
- keiferski 3y ago
  Very true and likely, but it doesn't change the fact that blockchain would be a potential solution to this problem.