Each of these reads like an extremely horny and angry man yelling their basest desires at Pornhub’s search function.

  • Savaran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The obvious thing is that at some point any camera worth it’s salt will have a nice embedded key that it signs it’s output traceable to a vendor’s CA at the least. No signature, the image would be considered fake.

    • gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a programmer, I gotta say, that’s probably not technically feasible in a sensible way.

      Every camera has got to have an embedded key, and if any one of them leaks, the system becomes worthless.

      • Turun@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, that would actually be feasible with enough effort.

        The real question is what do you do if someone takes a screenshot of that image? Since the picture must be in a format that can be shown, nothing is stopping people from writing software that just strips the authentication from the camera file.

        Edit: misread the problem. You need to get a private key to make forgeries and be able to say “no look, this was taken with a camera”. Stripping the signature from photographs is the opposite of what we want here.