[djsumdog]

If it gets good enough that it becomes difficult to identify real security cam footage vs edited footage (which could be easier than you think considering the low quality/resolution of security cameras), there could be serious legal consequences.

What if a suspect's lawyer plays the same CCTV video and shows the arresting officer committing the crime and says, "See. Anyone could have made this evidence." You'd then have to prove chain of custody and it can get incredibly hairy .. but only if you're rich and famous enough to hire those lawyers and make that argument.

[smallnamespace]

We're going to need to digitally sign everything at the time of production to prove to they're not forgeries then.

[na85]

We already have the capability to do special effects and superposition in real time. My phone can do it with simple shapes in snapchat already, including with proper perspective and depth scaling.

Imagine what will be possible in even 5 years with good hardware. Deep fakes in real time, digitally signed.

[smallnamespace]

I'd imagine that the ability to fake and tell apart fakes will scale with computational resources, and so we will also have progressively stronger signatures that cost more computational power to generate.

This is basically already the premise of PoW -- it's hard to fake out the network and the chain of hashes show you exactly how much computational work was put into demonstrating veracity.

This doesn't remove the ability to fake things, but it imposes a price. If you really want to show something is real, dump a bunch of computation into computing hashes.

[Swizec]

Exactly. I think we're going to stop using video as evidence of anything.