[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Video & cryptography... (fwd)
Forwarded message:
> From: Adam Shostack <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Video & cryptography... (fwd)
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:02:53 -0500 (EST)
> | Doesn't this same sort of issue arise from any other digital signature
> | process then? There should be nothing fundamentaly different between the
> | characteristics of a video camera signing a frame than a person signing
> | email.
>
> It arises in a different context; with a signature on paper,
> you're generally indicating that you've read and consented to whats on
> the paper, not that you created it.
Isn't signing the document at least in theory a participatory creative act?
If you don't sign it then it doesn't exist in the same context as if you do.
Otherwise why have the signature? If I use a camera to sign a digital image
am I not stating that I have viewed and consented to the image being a valid
representation of what the lens saw? Seem quite similar to me.
> The meaning of a camera signing a
> video still is not obvious to me. Is it intended to be 'this is what
> we saw through the lens?' or 'this is what really happened?'
A mechanism to sign a digital image would provide some base protection
against altering the image surreptitously, just as why you sign (and get a
copy) of other documentary evidence.
____________________________________________________________________
| |
| The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, |
| but the desire to edit somebody elses words. |
| |
| Sign in Ed Barsis' office |
| |
| _____ The Armadillo Group |
| ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA |
| /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ |
| .', |||| `/( e\ |
| -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate |
| [email protected] |
| 512-451-7087 |
|____________________________________________________________________|