What good is video evidence, if it can be faked? Having numerous independent feeds helps, I suppose. But once you have enough perspectives to create a decent 3D model, you can generate as many fake perspectives as you like.
Also, there are obvious downsides to panopticons.
But none of that matters, I guess. We will have the cameras and the fakes.
Even better: what good is video evidence if few care?
Consider officers shooting black people. There are several videos of that, but does it show any sign of stopping? They even walk off without any repercussions at trial...
And, conversely, when people do care, no extra evidence is needed.
Well I guess what people really care about is the story. The narrative that you derive from the pictures (and assumedly, audio recordings). And a TLDR of that. That would be an automation problem.
A dozen high-quality TLDRs and you've got the local, state, national and global scoop, as well as the latest dirt on politicians and movie stars.
Nearly everyone cares. But the people you're referring to carefully weigh all the facts (what little there usually are) before coming to a conclusion.
In which trial was it unambiguous that the police broke the law and also demonstrated institutionalized racism, and faced no repercussions?
I'm all for police accountability, but when we do have video evidence it often ambiguous on if the officer was in the wrong in using force. And when it isn't ambiguous, the officer goes to jail.
Actually people do care, especially since there is video. what they still don't care about that would probably need video as well is the staggering amount of black on black shooting.
however as a society are we willing to give up that much privacy the moment we step out the door, where anything and everything could be a recording device. then again if we are drowning in being observed do we in turn find more freedom?
With as many cameras as we already have, there isn't much privacy anywhere, unless we live alone.
I just reread The Light of Other Days by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter. Basically, they argue that group consciousness is the best option where there is no privacy.
It's easy to "fake" news, and has been since cameras were invented - just choose the way you frame the image, or the moment you press record. No-one will doubt the video evidence of police beating protestors, and no-one will believe the claims that just a few minutes earlier they were throwing petrol bombs, after all where's the video?
It cuts the other way, too - with a sufficiently pervasive propaganda apparatus, it's easy to frame dissent as unpatriotic, as sedition backed by foreign governments or even as terrorism. If you've been told ten thousand times that enemies of the people are trying to undermine the state, evidence of human rights abuses or corruption might not seem particularly damning.
Of the fakes: Some NGO:s are vetting film material to tag specific ones as credible evidence of e.g. states behaving badly. They compare time of day to known weather patterns, cross reference previous film to see if something has been reused etc.
You might be referencing Amnesty International. They have create a site and tools that citizens and researchers can use to verify media as evidence. [1]
A possible solution to some of the problems would be creating (and for official videos, requiring) a chain of trust, enforced by strong crypto, starting at the original recording device and ending at the viewer's display. Some trusted parties would also probably have to vouch for the start of the chain, too.
That basically sounds like the dream world of DRM people, though.
How could it tell coordinates in either space or time? non-military-grade GPS is spoofable (not really easy yet, but easier by the day) and GPS signal is rarely available inside a building (and sometimes just under an awning or cloudy days, or near skyscrapers - GPS in NYC is horrible; mobile phone GPS are as reliable as they are because they take cell towers and wifi into account).
The important point is " making it harder " - but how hard is hard enough depends on the party in question, and for many important ones, the simple answer is "not hard enough".
I don't even think you need "the best fakes" these days - just have your press secretary flat out deny that something happened. If any reporters push back, stop asking them questions and/or block them from your briefings.
Ultimately it's the justice system that matters. You can have as many videos you want, if the legal forces dismiss them for "reasons" you can go moot back in your room. This just happened with cop shooting people.
Yes, that's an eerie tale. I'm reminded of The Last Trumpet Project by Kevin MacArdry. Featuring retroactive immortality through wormhole brain scanning.[0]
Also, there are obvious downsides to panopticons.
But none of that matters, I guess. We will have the cameras and the fakes.