No Stupid Questions

My prediction: verified video will start to become a thing.

Phones will be able to encode a digital signature with a video that certifies the date, time, and location where the video was captured. Modifying the video in any way will invalidate it.

Same for photos.

People will stop believing photos and video that don't have a verifiable signature. Social networks and news organizations will automatically verify the signatures of all photos and videos they display.

Technically this is already possible today, it just needs to become mainstream and the default.

I expect that if/when that time comes, we'll see the credibility of video evidence decline.

Currently at my night job, there is video surveillance of common areas. Because of the skill and tools required in doctoring/deepfaking, there's a pretty large window in which footage could be used should it ever need to be. But when we approach the point at which doctoring/deepfakes become pedestrian or even automated, that window slims dramatically.

Depending on the speed and ease with which it can be done, we could see legitimate arguments in favor of discounting video evidence as it then becomes less reliable than eyewitness testimony (which is already notoriously unreliable).

There's only been a short period of human history from the invention of photography to today. We had evidence before photography existed, and we will still have evidence even if photography can be trivially faked.

There's only been a very short period of human history where video cameras were cheap enough to be used for widespread surveillance, but could not be trivially faked. That period is just about over. We had laws prior to video surveillance, and we will still have laws even if video surveillance becomes obsolete.

But it won't. Instead, provenance, or chain-of-custody of evidence, will become even more important.

You can fake security camera footage — but if real security cameras upload their recordings automatically to a service that timestamps them and certifies them, then that metadata (and the trustworthiness of the service) represent a way of verifying that particular footage was created at a particular time, and even by a particular instrument.

Instead of Joe's Corner Store having video cameras that record only to local storage or to Joe's own account on a cloud service, they will instead stream to a service run by a security or insurance company, or (in some places) the police. This service will timestamp the video, record checksums, and thereby provide assurance that a particular video recording is really from Joe's camera and not faked by AI.

Effectively, you can't trust a mere video that appears to show Taylor Swift shoplifting from Joe's Corner Store — but when a representative from Joe's insurance company testifies in court that the video was definitely recorded by their device at a particular time, and has the logs and checksums to prove it, Ms. Swift will be in trouble.

It has always been possible to fake a video or photo, or to lie when testifying. The solution will be the same as always: presenting multiple forms of evidence, investigating people suspected of lying, and having a high standard of proof for criminal cases. AI might mean an increase in faked videos and photos, but nothing that can't be done already.

We do the same as we did before the invention of cameras. rely on witnesses