4 ms·

We basically get back to pre-photo era, when all you access your information based on credibility of messenger.

• chii 2y ago
  or for photos, only film evidence can be admitted. Digital content (or even digitized content, unless there's a film backup), is inadmissable.
  • estebank 2y ago
    Making film backed images from edited digital pictures is not beyond the ability of a motivated individual, let alone a state entity. Even something as rudimentary as a film camera pointed at a slightly out of focus 4k screen can be made believable, specially in a film stock with heavy grain.
    • chii 2y ago
      I guess if you have enough resources, faking something is possible. But making it expensive means fewer people could do it. The advent of ai and ease of doing so is what is dangerous. Perhaps images taken in the future by digital cameras need to come with an IR depth map as well, which would make it harder to fake.
      • burnerthrow008 2y ago
        But it doesn't even seem expensive? 4k monitors are cheap these days, as are used 35mm film cameras. I bet you could build the system estebank mentioned for less than $500. Adding a depth map to a simulated image sounds cheaper than adding it to a real image.
  • qingcharles 2y ago
    I can use film to take a photo of a screen... :/ The way they solve this issue in court is having the photographer lay a foundation by swearing to the authenticity of the image.