4 ms·
It's quite depressing that in 10-15 years photographs and video won't really be admissible as court evidence in most cases. At least they won't be any more cred
by mateo1 5y ago
It's quite depressing that in 10-15 years photographs and video won't really be admissible as court evidence in most cases. At least they won't be any more credible than a witness statement. Photography and especially video has been a great equalizer when it comes to accessing justice.
- Jeff_Brown 5y agoWe'll be able to use cryptographic signatures to prove who said what. Once people become less able to mindlessly watch video from whoever they like to believe, and have to actually start paying attention to such signatures and the reputations of the entities signing .. uh, not sure how to finish that sentence but it might be good
- hanklazard 5y agoI’ve thought about this too. Each image in a chain of altered images could be cryptographically signed / verified, that makes sense. The hardest part seems like verifying the original “straight out of camera” video/photo, maybe hardware manufacturers implement a way to prove the output is original?
- Jeff_Brown 5y agoEven if we can't get workable signatures from cameras, we can create workable signatures by reporters on videos they took. A reporter's reputation will become valuable. Currently (many) people believe video even when it's posted by shameless, obvious liars, because hey, the video can't lie, right? Once it can, maybe they'll actually care more about the error record of the news outlet they consume from. It's still not a great situation, because it means when a casual passerby takes an important video for the first time, it will have trouble getting any traction. But maybe it's at least a silver lining.