Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes

rumuki.com

11–20 of 207 posts

Re: Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes

#11
post #6

Ummm, so shoot a video of the playing video. Or hack into the display circuitry. With that, you could stream a copy somewhere, even if both parties were present.

OP here, this is addressed in the FAQ, I'll paste it here :)

> How do I know my partner won't abuse my trust?

> You can't. However with Rumuki you have the discretion to only grant playbacks when you can keep an eye on them. You also have the option to revoke all playback grants and delete the recording if trust is ever lost.

Re: Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes

#18
post #6

Ummm, so shoot a video of the playing video. Or hack into the display circuitry. With that, you could stream a copy somewhere, even if both parties were present.

Most people who leak sex tapes involving an ex probably don't think of doing so while they are still in a relationship with said ex. By the time they think of revenge, the victim-to-be should already have revoked access.

If your ex is making secret copies of sex tapes while you are still in a relationship with him, I think you have bigger things to worry about than revenge porn.

Re: Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes

#19

In many places, paying for sex is illegal. Paying to make a pornography video isn't. Could this be used to build the Uber for sex?

This question is asked commonly enough that Popehat dedicated at least one post to explaining why the "porn exception" would flop:

https://www.popehat.com/2016/11/06/private-porn-shoots-brill...

Re: Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes

#20

Do a external recording while having access and this solution fails.

I mean, that's obvious, right?

And yet, this solution still provides a dramatic increase in security for its users. Normally, files "exist by default", and will continue to do so forever. You have to take deliberate action to delete them. But here, files are effectively "destroyed by default", and can only be accessed via:

1. Consent of both parties.

2. One of the parties going out of their way to make a deliberate copy within a 7-day window, when (you hope) they're still well-disposed towards the other person.

A security solution does not need to be perfect.

Similar issues arise with systems like Hashicorp's Vault, which generates time-limited, revokable credentials for programs. Obviously, a compromised server could abuse a time-limited AWS credential. But that's still a much better situation than handling out AWS credentials with unlimited lifetimes, because they'll inevitably wind up in all sorts of strange places.

Expiration is not a solution to all your security problems. But it's much better than no expiration.

Post reply on HN