4 ms·
It's not about what is being signed, it's about who signed it and whether you trust that source. I want credible news outlets to start signing their content wit
by airspresso 3y ago
It's not about what is being signed, it's about who signed it and whether you trust that source. I want credible news outlets to start signing their content with a key I can verify as theirs. In that future all unsigned content is by definition fishy. PKI is the only way to implement trust in a digital realm.
- Ajedi32 3y agoWhy do you need a whole PKI for that, rather than just, say, a link to the news outlet's website where the content is hosted? People have already been doing that pretty much since the web was created.
- thwarted 3y ago> It's not about what is being signed, it's about who signed it Yeah, that's what I said about PKI. I also said there is confusion between provenance of a statement and its accuracy. Just because it's signed doesn't mean anything about its accuracy, but those that confuse the two will think that just because it is signed, or because it was signed by a certain "trustworthy" party, that indicates accuracy. PKI does not establish the trustworthiness of the other party, it only gives you confidence in the identity of the party who signed something. George Santos could sign his resume. We know it was signed by George Santos. And yet nothing in the resume could be considered accurate (or even a falsehood) purely because it is signed. That it was proven to be signed by George Santos via PKI is independent of the fact that George Santos is a known liar.
- rossjudson 3y agoTime is important; have a trusted source of time. The nice thing about reality is that it is consistent.