Mostly agree on the blockchain shenanigans, though I suppose using an external blockchain allows you to prove that the image was taken before a certain point in time.
Mostly agree on the blockchain shenanigans, though I suppose using an external blockchain allows you to prove that the image was taken before a certain point in time.
So this scheme can work to ensure that you're seeing the Reuters published version, not that Reuters itself didn't edit it after the camera took it.
Does that help?
>nobody's going to request the huge RAW files for every photo
I don't see this as a big issue as there are several easy ways around it -- the simplest being that the camera could compute and store a second digital signature of a smaller, JPEG-compressed version at photo time. Another possibility is third-party businesses popping up that you (or even high-quality news agencies themselves) pay to do the human verification for you.
Regarding your other comment, sure, such a manual system might be possible, but that relies on either Reuters publishing all of their unedited raw photos (which they probably won't) or a third party photo escrow service with all the rights to the Reuters originals. Neither seems likely.
I don't think this is an easy a problem as you might imagine? Perceptual hashing is a thing but there's no guarantee of forensic accuracy there.
Reuters has a history of doctoring its photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters (photo controversy section)
It's not OK when reporters or papers do things like that.
You have the final image (your browser downloaded it to display the page). Their new tech allows you to acquire something that you can be cryptographically certain is the original image. You can then look at the two images, and judge for yourself whether they look similar enough. Where does perceptual hashing come into it?
ETA:
>Regarding your other comment, sure, such a manual system might be possible, but that relies on either Reuters publishing all of their unedited raw photos (which they probably won't) or a third party photo escrow service with all the rights to the Reuters originals. Neither seems likely.
No it doesn't -- they just need to provide those photos on demand. (If they don't, then their system is a hoax -- like giving someone a key that doesn't open any lock.) See my other comments in this thread.
>Reuters has a history of doctoring its photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters (photo controversy section)
Didn't read the link but based on another's reply comment, the added smoke is exactly the type of fraud that this new system will detect the first time anyone bothers to check that photo.