I had the thought a day or so ago that a system could be created to tie images to their respective cameras with a private key stored inside of a chip that self-destructs when you attempt to read the key from outside of it, along with a trust hierarchy of certs from various camera manufacturers. A little like hardware auth tokens mixed with PKI.
Does that sound like something that would be feasible to produce/practical in the real world?
Feasible? Sure, to the limits of what we can do with secure enclaves today.
Desirable? Well, you've created a system that authenticates a camera as being at a place at a time. It's a good way to authenticate photos, but a bad way to stay anonymous.
How do you feel about photographers and journalists becoming even larger targets for anyone who wants to keep a secret?
In the past the actual image authenticated that the camera was at a place at a time, and anonymity was preserved.
The issue is : does it authenticate that a particular camera that belongs to a particular person is/was at a place at a time and produced an image - because if so then if the device is found in a search the owner/user/keeper is in hot water.
So the camera must be anonymous - but it must be impossible for a lie about the place and time to be encoded into the image.
something similar was done a number of years ago but cracked later. I think it was Nikon who had it and the proof of the crack was someone signed the Beatles crossing the road with a Nikon camera key.
Meanwhile secure enclaves are now possibly a lot safer, but as Kalium mentioned it might not be very attractive for everyone.
For forensics experts however it could become very useful I believe.
Kalium|6 years ago
Desirable? Well, you've created a system that authenticates a camera as being at a place at a time. It's a good way to authenticate photos, but a bad way to stay anonymous.
How do you feel about photographers and journalists becoming even larger targets for anyone who wants to keep a secret?
sgt101|6 years ago
The issue is : does it authenticate that a particular camera that belongs to a particular person is/was at a place at a time and produced an image - because if so then if the device is found in a search the owner/user/keeper is in hot water.
So the camera must be anonymous - but it must be impossible for a lie about the place and time to be encoded into the image.
eitland|6 years ago
Meanwhile secure enclaves are now possibly a lot safer, but as Kalium mentioned it might not be very attractive for everyone.
For forensics experts however it could become very useful I believe.