3 ms·

> Surely there is an $1000 solution that's acceptable? I'd guess that police video systems have technical means to assure no undetected editing and possibly so

by anamax 17y ago

> Surely there is an $1000 solution that's acceptable? I'd guess that police video systems have technical means to assure no undetected editing and possibly something related to chain of custody. "Signed image" versions (which address the editing question) cost order $1k more than comparable DSLRs.

jrockway 17y ago
Startup opportunity. gpg --sign file.jpg Cost: $0. But actually, isn't potentially inauthentic video better than nothing at all? At least it can be analyzed by experts. No video at all means there is nothing to analyze.
- patio11 17y ago
  If we have a court system built on potentially inauthentic memory with people that have strong incentives to lie, and it mostly works, I think the video should probably mostly work, too. (Compare the amount of effort that it takes to doctor a video to the amount of effort it takes to, ahem, edit one's recollection of the events at issue to place one in a better light.) I realize there are human factors to consider, though.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > If we have a court system built on potentially inauthentic memory with people that have strong incentives to lie, and it mostly works For some definitions of "mostly"... > I realize there are human factors to consider, though. Yup. In some ways, we demand more of technology. While that may be irrational, assuming otherwise doesn't work.
- anamax 17y ago
  > gpg --sign file.jpg Cute, but since it's outside the camera, useless. (They're smart enough to figure out that alteration can occur before the image is signed.) > But actually, isn't potentially inauthentic video better than nothing at all? At least it can be analyzed by experts. No video at all means there is nothing to analyze. Experts aren't (necessarily) cheap and even then it's a crapshoot. I don't know that they've analysed the costs vs benefits of taking unsigned video correctly, but I'm pretty sure that they at least know some of the costs, so I suspect that they're closer than folks who think that there are no costs.

by anamax 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

Startup opportunity. gpg --sign file.jpg Cost: $0. But actually, isn't potentially inauthentic video better than nothing at all? At least it can be analyzed by experts. No video at all means there is nothing to analyze.

patio11 17y ago
If we have a court system built on potentially inauthentic memory with people that have strong incentives to lie, and it mostly works, I think the video should probably mostly work, too. (Compare the amount of effort that it takes to doctor a video to the amount of effort it takes to, ahem, edit one's recollection of the events at issue to place one in a better light.) I realize there are human factors to consider, though.
- anamax 17y ago
  > If we have a court system built on potentially inauthentic memory with people that have strong incentives to lie, and it mostly works For some definitions of "mostly"... > I realize there are human factors to consider, though. Yup. In some ways, we demand more of technology. While that may be irrational, assuming otherwise doesn't work.
anamax 17y ago
> gpg --sign file.jpg Cute, but since it's outside the camera, useless. (They're smart enough to figure out that alteration can occur before the image is signed.) > But actually, isn't potentially inauthentic video better than nothing at all? At least it can be analyzed by experts. No video at all means there is nothing to analyze. Experts aren't (necessarily) cheap and even then it's a crapshoot. I don't know that they've analysed the costs vs benefits of taking unsigned video correctly, but I'm pretty sure that they at least know some of the costs, so I suspect that they're closer than folks who think that there are no costs.