This is an interesting conversation because we both seem convinced we're "obviously right". I am clearly having trouble understanding your point of view. I apol

This is an interesting conversation because we both seem convinced we're "obviously right". I am clearly having trouble understanding your point of view. I apologise in advance if I'm mis-understanding your argument. Perhaps "First off, you'd have to steal the actual device" from upthread is the clue. I think the disconnect might be that you are working from a threat model where someone else is trying to tamper with an image from your camera. I agree you could make that arbitrarily difficult. But I am primarily concerned with the threat where someone is tampering with their own camera to fake evidence. This possibility makes it harder for you to prove that your own image is legitimate. Your reasoning implies that one or two hacked cameras are not a problem. To my way of thinking, the possibility that "at least 1 hacked camera exists" or "any camera could possibly be hacked" are enough to throw doubt on any "verified" images that someone tries to present in a high stakes context such as national security or the courtroom. We're back to debating provenance.