3 ms·
It's so important in these situations to gather as much hard evidence as possible (audio/video recordings), from the start. Voice recorders and storage are ver
by 127361 3y ago
It's so important in these situations to gather as much hard evidence as possible (audio/video recordings), from the start.
Voice recorders and storage are very cheap nowadays, keep them on you, running at all times if you ever find yourself in any similar circumstances. That way, it's no longer of "he said, she said", and it's clear who the problem is.
Of course assuming this is legal to do so where you live.
- striking 3y agoThat's not always legal, is it?
- 127361 3y agoLegal where I am, I've updated the comment.
- falcor84 3y agoThis would have been good advice a decade ago, but with how good deepfakes are now, I would argue that any audio/video evidence recorded and submitted by either party should be considered as part of their testimony rather than valid evidence, unless its provenance can be cryptographically confirmed.
- iudqnolq 3y ago> unless its provenance can be cryptographically confirmed How do you envision that working? All I can think of that could in theory be possible would be using crypto to prove a video existed at a particular point in time. But that's not that valuable in terms of proof. Plus you can get the same effect by just handing a copy to someone like a lawyer who has a reputation for honesty and has a lot to lose if they're found to be dishonest.
- falcor84 3y agoThat's pretty much what I'm thinking too. And you don't even need to submit a copy, but rather just a cryptographic hash of your file. But there's still the issue of proving that you haven't manipulated it before handing it in, and here I can't seem to think of anything better than the recording and hash submission being done by a DRM'd tool out of the individual's full control.