hyperhopper
This is correct though. The first line didn’t say “given name” or “first name”
The correct way to fill out that paper as asked would be “peter Parker” and “Parker”
A MAC is symmetric and can thus only be verified by you or somebody who you trust to not misuse or leak the key.
You sign them against a known public key, so anybody can verify them.
Regular digital signatures is what’s needed here You can still use such a signing circuit but treat it as an attestation by the camera’s owner, not as independent proof of authenticity.
If it’s just the cameras owner attesting, then just have them sign it. No need for expensive complicated circuits and regulations forcing these into existence.
I think you are misunderstanding things or don’t know shit about cryptography. Why the fuck are y even talking about publicly unlockable encryption, this is a use case for verification like a MAC signature, not any kind of encryption.
And no, your process is wild. The actual answer is just replace the sensor input to the same encryption circuits. That is trivial if you own and have control over your own device. For your scheme to work, personal ownership rights would have to be severely hampered.
All of this could be done without blockchain. Once they sign a signature with their private key they can’t unsign it later. Once you attest something you cannot un-attest it.
Just make the public key known and sign things. Please stop shoehorning blockchain where it doesn’t belong, especially when you aren’t even giving any examples of things that blockchain is doing for you with 100000x the cost and complexity, that normal crypto from the 80s/90s cant do better.