Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>every form of non-fictional media has to be mediated by a trusted third party

This sounds like the kind of "trust problem" I've heard will supposedly be solved by practical blockchain technology. I'm wondering this aloud, since I'm not sure how that could really be accomplished. As someone below suggested, some means of cryptographically signing "authentic" or ungenerated/unmodified video.

Come to think of it, have major scandals been invoked by photos that were proven or likely to be manipulated since the invention of that technology? Does the public place less stock in the authenticity of photos by default these days?




So I'm showing my age here, but...

Back in the day - a fax wasn't considered a "signed legal document", but it _was_ considered "proof of existence of a signed legal document".

Perhaps the response to this is to not "trust" video or images as standalone legal "evidence", but to allow a person to testify "yes, that's an unmodified depiction of an event I witnessed", with that person then being held liable to legal penalties for perjury if that's disproved.

There's precedent (here in Australia) - traffic cameras put a hash of the image and detected infringement details into the file they use for enforcement action and as evidence if you elect to have it heard in court, at which time they need an "expert witness" from the manufacturer to state that the image cannot have been manipulated as "proved" by the hash (there was a hilarious case in Sydney a couple of decades back because back where a defence lawyer got smart enough advice to point out the fixed speed camera his client was accused by had a design flaw where the hash was calculated of the photograph _before_ overlaying the date/time/detected speed on it, so it was impossible to verify the hash since the annotations destroyed enough information... They had to let the alleged offender off, and then scrabbled to create a twisted legal interpretation to ensure all other drivers fine by the same model speed camera couldn't all dispute past fines...)


That puts us back to relying on eyewitness testimony. Not progress, IMHO [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony


Eyewitness testimony is a lot more reliable when they've got a video to back it up.


How can we conclude this if we don't know whether the video is accurate or falsified?

Ordinary photo/video evidence can no longer be trusted as either support or impeachment of an eyewitness' report.


Eyewitness testimony by honest witnesses is what's considered unreliable. Video corroboration is what makes it reliable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: