4 ms·
A blockchain can't verify official journalistic images. Someone has to do the verifying, and that person can still lie to the blockchain. It's the same situatio
by dotnet00 3y ago
A blockchain can't verify official journalistic images. Someone has to do the verifying, and that person can still lie to the blockchain. It's the same situation as NFTs.
- keiferski 3y agoYes, and that someone would be the collection of camera manufacturers that agree to implement a blockchain record on all photographs and then publish that to a public blockchain.
- dotnet00 3y agoSo then what's the point of the blockchain if you're relying on exclusive attestation by camera manufacturers? They could just use plain old asymmetric encryption to sign the images. Has the bonus of not needing an internet connection.
- keiferski 3y agoYou would still need a way for image editing programs to allow for edits in a way that doesn't compromise the validation.
- dotnet00 3y agoYes, but while a blockchain could be useful there, the very act of editing defeats the point of the signature. Eg editing someone into or out of the photo. Validation by requiring the original unedited image to also be accessible doesn't work either since often the edits have a valid journalistic reason (eg to preserve a victim's anonymity). Allowing exceptions will just result in those exceptions dominating, just like how "anonymous sources tell us" has become a popular way to write clickbaiting hit pieces without having to actually back anything up with evidence. Personally I really don't buy the idea that we can technologically eliminate something as vague as fake images. The solution is a less gullible public, and an acceptance that the short interval where communication was easy and forgery was comparatively difficult, was an exceptional circumstance. We're just returning back to the norm.