6 ms·

Pretty soon I think there will be a market for CCTV cameras that use a tamper-proof module to sign the video output, with a unique key and a key chain back to t

Pretty soon I think there will be a market for CCTV cameras that use a tamper-proof module to sign the video output, with a unique key and a key chain back to the manufacturer. Video evidence simply won't be admissible unless it's signed, and you can present the undamaged camera in court.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> Video evidence simply won't be admissible unless it's signed Courts today readily admit the testimony of eye-witnesses, which ware notoriously fallible. It is a common misconception among tech people that all systems operate in rational ways, but this is only really the case for machines.
- whatisthiseven 7y ago
  > It is a common misconception among tech people that all systems operate in rational ways, but this is only really the case for machines. Very elegant and concise. I would say this extends to all deeply complex fields: engineering, physicists, quant, etc. They all have a mindset of "I can understand the whole system because they have logical components that build on top of one another" and so therefore expect and demand that all other fields do the same.
  - Mangalor 7y ago
    To be fair, wiser engineers seek to discriminate between the rational and irrational parts of a system.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mrec 7y ago
  Eye-witnesses can at least be prosecuted for perjury if they're found to be deliberately lying. It's hard to apply the same threat to a CCTV camera. Honest mistakes are obviously a separate issue, but the parallel there would be bad lighting or a corrupted recording, neither of which are new issues.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    "Honest" (subject to police pressure) mistakes in identifying people are vastly more common than a video accidentally showing a different face.
- fleetingmoments 7y ago
  A video of someone committing a crime carries far more weight than an eyewitness account currently.
  - syshum 7y ago
    I dont know if that is really true TONS of people a convicted based on mainly eyewitness accounts, later to be released when proper evidence is found to exonerate them Most of the Innocence Project is made up of cases like that
Cpoll 7y ago
That should be easy to defeat: Patch into the camera sensor and feed in your own data, which the module will sign.
- someguyorother 7y ago
  Presumably the whole thing would have to be tamper-resistant. Try to get to the CCD and it fries itself. And sticking a monitor in front of the camera probably wouldn't work, at least if telesync/cam rips are anything to go by :)
michaelt 7y ago
Display fake video on screen. Point video-signing camera at screen. You now have a signed fake video. You're welcome.
BlameKaneda 7y ago
How would this tamper-proof technology work? The first thing that came to mind was paper money having textures/etc to prevent counterfeiting.
JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
Commercial DVRs already sign video as its recorded and have for years. It's more about chain of custody/location and time verification. Video authentication can't be used to tell if a video is real because it may just be a "real" recording of faked content. But you can say with some certainty that a video came from DVR X at Y time.
missosoup 7y ago
That just restricts the circle of people who can doctor these signed videos, it does nothing to solve the underlying issue. State actors would love to be able to deepfake someone into a crime scene and then say 'hey look this is signed so it's totally legit'.
- tartrate 7y ago
  And since it's not much different than planting evidence we know for certain that it's going to happen.
- swalsh 7y ago
  Trust is a part of nearly every system. At some point you're just going to have to trust a person or company to get some value in a practical way.
  - stult 7y ago
    Yeah this is just another chain of evidence problem. We trust cops not to plant evidence, so long as they follow strict chain of evidence procedures. It’s an imperfect system but it’s largely effective.
- ThePhysicist 7y ago
  This is maybe one of the few relevant use cases of Blockchain technology: Cameras can add video checksums to a public audit log secured e.g. by proof of work or another trust mechanism. If enough parties archive this log it will be very difficult to forge videos without tampering with the actual recording device, because duplicates as well as tampered videos created at a later time would be easy to detect in the data, and the replication as well as proof of work would make it very difficult to forge the entire audit log.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    You don't need a blockchain or proof of work for that, timestamped digital signatures are a thing that's being used already, you just need a proper trust infrastructure. A blockchain with proof of work solves the problem of decentralization and absence of trust; however, for legal matters, having a centralized root of trust is the simpler way to go and requires much less resources. However, tampering with the actual recording device is a very relevant risk - I struggle to imagine an attacker who has the desire and capability to make some serious crime, and convincingly fake a video as part of it, but would be foiled because they can't figure out a way to upload it properly in the exact manner as a real camera would.
throwaway744678 7y ago
There will probably be an intermediary step: in the same way that one can try to find evidence that a picture was "photoshopped" or an audio recording was tampered with, there are probably hints (for experts) that a video was edited.
- thwarted 7y ago
  And conspiracy theorists will apply that same level of skepticism to unedited video, seeing those hints everywhere.
gldalmaso 7y ago
The damage will really lie where it already does today, where people consume info without any filters in whatsapp groups within their bubbles. If they can believe a photoshopped image with a caption, they will be much more inclined to believe video "evidence", and no explaining of deep fakes will convince them otherwise. Any tamper proofing process may be viable for news outlets and courts, but if the technology is easy enough to use there will be no escaping spreading of fabricated facts.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

> Video evidence simply won't be admissible unless it's signed Courts today readily admit the testimony of eye-witnesses, which ware notoriously fallible. It is a common misconception among tech people that all systems operate in rational ways, but this is only really the case for machines.

whatisthiseven 7y ago
> It is a common misconception among tech people that all systems operate in rational ways, but this is only really the case for machines. Very elegant and concise. I would say this extends to all deeply complex fields: engineering, physicists, quant, etc. They all have a mindset of "I can understand the whole system because they have logical components that build on top of one another" and so therefore expect and demand that all other fields do the same.
- Mangalor 7y ago
  To be fair, wiser engineers seek to discriminate between the rational and irrational parts of a system.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mrec 7y ago
Eye-witnesses can at least be prosecuted for perjury if they're found to be deliberately lying. It's hard to apply the same threat to a CCTV camera. Honest mistakes are obviously a separate issue, but the parallel there would be bad lighting or a corrupted recording, neither of which are new issues.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  "Honest" (subject to police pressure) mistakes in identifying people are vastly more common than a video accidentally showing a different face.
fleetingmoments 7y ago
A video of someone committing a crime carries far more weight than an eyewitness account currently.
- syshum 7y ago
  I dont know if that is really true TONS of people a convicted based on mainly eyewitness accounts, later to be released when proper evidence is found to exonerate them Most of the Innocence Project is made up of cases like that

Cpoll 7y ago

That should be easy to defeat: Patch into the camera sensor and feed in your own data, which the module will sign.

someguyorother 7y ago
Presumably the whole thing would have to be tamper-resistant. Try to get to the CCD and it fries itself. And sticking a monitor in front of the camera probably wouldn't work, at least if telesync/cam rips are anything to go by :)

michaelt 7y ago

Display fake video on screen. Point video-signing camera at screen. You now have a signed fake video. You're welcome.

BlameKaneda 7y ago

How would this tamper-proof technology work? The first thing that came to mind was paper money having textures/etc to prevent counterfeiting.

JackRabbitSlim 7y ago

Commercial DVRs already sign video as its recorded and have for years. It's more about chain of custody/location and time verification. Video authentication can't be used to tell if a video is real because it may just be a "real" recording of faked content. But you can say with some certainty that a video came from DVR X at Y time.

missosoup 7y ago

That just restricts the circle of people who can doctor these signed videos, it does nothing to solve the underlying issue. State actors would love to be able to deepfake someone into a crime scene and then say 'hey look this is signed so it's totally legit'.

tartrate 7y ago
And since it's not much different than planting evidence we know for certain that it's going to happen.
swalsh 7y ago
Trust is a part of nearly every system. At some point you're just going to have to trust a person or company to get some value in a practical way.
- stult 7y ago
  Yeah this is just another chain of evidence problem. We trust cops not to plant evidence, so long as they follow strict chain of evidence procedures. It’s an imperfect system but it’s largely effective.
ThePhysicist 7y ago
This is maybe one of the few relevant use cases of Blockchain technology: Cameras can add video checksums to a public audit log secured e.g. by proof of work or another trust mechanism. If enough parties archive this log it will be very difficult to forge videos without tampering with the actual recording device, because duplicates as well as tampered videos created at a later time would be easy to detect in the data, and the replication as well as proof of work would make it very difficult to forge the entire audit log.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  You don't need a blockchain or proof of work for that, timestamped digital signatures are a thing that's being used already, you just need a proper trust infrastructure. A blockchain with proof of work solves the problem of decentralization and absence of trust; however, for legal matters, having a centralized root of trust is the simpler way to go and requires much less resources. However, tampering with the actual recording device is a very relevant risk - I struggle to imagine an attacker who has the desire and capability to make some serious crime, and convincingly fake a video as part of it, but would be foiled because they can't figure out a way to upload it properly in the exact manner as a real camera would.

throwaway744678 7y ago

There will probably be an intermediary step: in the same way that one can try to find evidence that a picture was "photoshopped" or an audio recording was tampered with, there are probably hints (for experts) that a video was edited.

thwarted 7y ago
And conspiracy theorists will apply that same level of skepticism to unedited video, seeing those hints everywhere.

gldalmaso 7y ago

The damage will really lie where it already does today, where people consume info without any filters in whatsapp groups within their bubbles. If they can believe a photoshopped image with a caption, they will be much more inclined to believe video "evidence", and no explaining of deep fakes will convince them otherwise. Any tamper proofing process may be viable for news outlets and courts, but if the technology is easy enough to use there will be no escaping spreading of fabricated facts.