• Laser@feddit.orgEnglish
    3·
    4 months ago

    But then what? So you have a camera signing its files and we pretend that extraction of the secret key is impossible (which it probably isn’t). You load the file into your editing program because usually, the source files are processed further. You create a derivative of the signed file and there’s no connection to the old signature anymore, so this would only make sense if you provide the original file for verification purposes, which most people won’t do.

    I guess it’s better than nothing but it will require more infrastructure to turn it into something usable, or of this was only used in important situations where manual checking isn’t an issue, like a newspaper posting a picture but keeping the original to verify the authenticity.

    • GamingChairModel@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      so this would only make sense if you provide the original file for verification purposes

      Yes, that’s exactly what I’m imagining. You’re keeping receipts for after-the-fact proof, in case it needs to be audited. If you have a newsworthy photograph, or evidence that needs to be presented to the court system, this could provide an important method of proving an untampered original.

      Maybe a central trusted authority can verify the signatures and generate a thumbnail for verification (take the signed photo and put it through an established, open source, destructive algorithm to punch out a 200x300 lossy compressed jpeg that at least confirms that the approximate photo was taken at that time and place, but without sufficient resolution/bit depth to compete with the original author on postprocessing.