5 ms·
Signing the raw image data wouldn't require also signing the EXIF metadata. For privacy, you could later strip out everything except the raw image and the camer
by stvltvs 6d ago
Signing the raw image data wouldn't require also signing the EXIF metadata. For privacy, you could later strip out everything except the raw image and the camera's signature and still prove that the image is unaltered.
- smalltorch 6d agoI think he's saying the existence of a camera signature is the privacy issue maybe.
- lokar 6d agoYou can remove it all. If authenticity later becomes an issue you can produce the original.
- ale42 5d agoWhat if the camera doesn't give you an original but just a signed image?
- DoctorOetker 5d agofrom a signed image you can always extract just the image
- lokar 5d agoI think some people are confused and think this is a watermark or something
- cortesoft 6d agoWhat are you signing it with, though? A unique key that only exists on your device... so it will perfectly tie a photo to a specific camera. Even if you didn't know who owned the camera, you could identify other pictures taken by that same camera, and information in those photos might let you figure out who owns the camera.
- anhner 5d agoBut you are signing it with your _private_ key, presumably. You know, the key that stays on your device and nobody knows?
- cortesoft 5d agoThat just means no one else can pretend they are you, but it also means they can know it HAS to be you. If you sign two images with that private key, people will know for certain that you created both of them. This is the whole point of signing something. No one else can fake it because they don't have the private key, but EVERYONE can verify it because they DO have the public key. In fact, they don't even need the public key because they can extract it from the signature and the signed image.