Rossphorus comments on Anon predicts the future

Greentext

8,964 readers

3,808 active

380 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 3 years ago

moderators

[–] Rossphorus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

This is just standard public key cryptography, we already do this for website certificates. Your browser puts a little lock icon next to the URL if it's legit, or provides you with a big, full-page warning if something's wrong with the cert.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] tweeks@feddit.nl 1 point 1 year ago

I know, but as a physical, mobile object as a camera is involved I imagine it's much more vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks than today's TLS certificates for sites. There are more moving parts / physical steps and the camera is probably not always online.

But in essence you are right, operating the camera the same way as a server should be possible of course. We need some basic trusted authorities that are as trusted as we have for our current TLS certificates.

What it will prove, is whether the video is actually of a specific camera certificate. Not who owns the camera, if it has been swapped or if the video footage is real.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent