Will video "evidence" become obsolete?

[Rubycon]

With all the hax out there modifying video - will it even suffice as credible evidence? Detection of tampering will only get harder in the future.

 

[Xylitol]

yes

 

[mugs]

Is photographic evidence "obsolete"? Photos are much easier to modify. But it's still generally possible to detect it.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: mugs
Is photographic evidence "obsolete"? Photos are much easier to modify. But it's still generally possible to detect it.

Many consider videographic evidence much more convincing than a still photo or collection of them since you have 30 pictures / second and sound!

EDIT: Also many security systems record digitally to hard disk with compression and lower frame and audio sample rates than NTSC devices so the artifacts in the original material have the potential to provide more masking for tampering.

 

[her209]

Digitally signing videos, maybe.

 

[waggy]

hell some video is already useless. There was a case of a women getting charged with child abuse froma Nanny cam. the cam would take one picture every 3 seconds. so the movie of her playing with the kid looked like she was shaking the hell out of it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: mugs
Is photographic evidence "obsolete"? Photos are much easier to modify. But it's still generally possible to detect it.

Many consider videographic evidence much more convincing than a still photo or collection of them since you have 30 pictures / second and sound!

EDIT: Also many security systems record digitally to hard disk with compression and lower frame and audio sample rates than NTSC devices so the artifacts in the original material have the potential to provide more masking for tampering.

It would take a great deal of effort to modify it, and surveillance camera footage is generally taken by the police immediately after a crime is committed. So it comes down to whether or not we trust the police. They could manufacture evidence of any type if they wanted to.

 

[jagec]

No, because what else is there? Eyewitness testimony? That's even worse!

With the high-profile cases, they'll be going over all the evidence with a fine-toothed comb, so it will be very hard to fake it. With the everyday cases, they don't have much evidence anyway, and it's all liable to be biased one way or the other. Video is still more reliable than most, even if that means a smart criminal could get away scot-free.

But then again, hasn't that always been true?

 

[Rubycon]

In the future the burden of proof is going to make sure the (video) evidence is genuine. Remember the jury is human.

I will not go into further details on surveillance program - but a lot of video from consumer camcorders gets submitted all the time.