Jim Choate wrote: | > From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org> | > Subject: Re: Video & cryptography... | > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:56:57 -0500 (EST) | | > Schneier, Wagner and Kelsey have done some work on an authenticating | > camera. Dave points out that this was Schneier, Hall and Kelsey. | > One issue to be concerned with is that what the camera sees is not | > always the truth. Putting a film set together to film bigfoot is | > easy. The fact that the film is authenticated as having come from the | > camera doesn't mean a whole lot in some cases. | | 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. 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?' Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume