From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 06:11:07 +0800
To: ravage@ssz.com
Subject: Re: Video & cryptography... (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199801261945.NAA28522@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <199801262202.RAA05102@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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