• Winter_Oven@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    I think maybe an update to the image format standards, where it like somehow includes a hash of the instrument that has taken the photo and video, and thus, only such media that can be verified to have been taken by a physical instrument can be used in like legal matters, or reporting or journals.

    Either this hash can be verified by some algorithm, or maybe the media could depend on this hash in such a way that the media is corrupted if it gets altered.

    • scratchee@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      The obvious limitation being that you can take a real photo with attestation with a real camera of a real computer screen displaying any fake shit you can imagine, then you have an officially hashed photo of anything.

      • chellomere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        If you’ve ever tried this, the moire pattern of pixels is obvious. You’d need a much higher resolution display than image sensor.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      There are already plans for metadata signing. I think some high end Canon cameras might do it already. It basically allows proof (via public private key of the hash) that a particular camera took that photo.

      The idea is that you can create a chain of custody with an image. Each edit requires a new signature, with each party responsible for verifying the previous chain, to protect their own reputation.

      It’s far from perfect, but will help a lot with things like legal cases.

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      So we should all have to throw away or phones, cameras, etc. And buy new ones that have proprietary hardware attestation?

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        Depends on the hash - some are tracable to a crypotographic public key and thus cannot be faked. Most are not but there are options that can be. Normally we refer to such things as signed not a hash but same thing to the layman who doesn’t understand this.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 days ago

          In order for it to be traceable with a public key, it needs to be signed with the private key. That means the private key has to be on the camera. That means it can be extracted from the camera and leaked.