For me the interesting philosophical question is how different is it to see things with out eyes and remember them vs. recording with a device? For the most pa

For me the interesting philosophical question is how different is it to see things with out eyes and remember them vs. recording with a device? For the most part, the fidelity and the transmittability are the main issues. If, hypothetically, someone invented a system that would allow a computer to adaptively display images to a human and accept semi-conscious feedback with the intent of reconstructing a relatively high-fidelity image from human memory, would such a system be illegal or equivalent to using a recording device? Similarly, would it be possible to reduce the fidelity or persistence of the recording device to the point where it wouldn't violate any ethical or social conventions? Some sort of "bad camera" that deliberately produces abstract representations of what is photographed or downsamples in such a way that forging the images becomes so easy that nobody would accept this sort of evidence in a court of law or even in more casual circumstances?