Forwarded message:

From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org> 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 | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|