When i was in the police I’d often collect CCTV from store owners etc.
I’d usually supervise the download to make sure I only got what I needed. In my statement I’d reference that I’d supervised the download and that the footage hadn’t been tampered with.
It wasnt a big deal.
Adding on that as a compulsory requirement, or making it so CCTV systems add hidden info into the meta data wouldn’t be difficult.
Tech folk seem to not realize that “this image could have been faked!” has been a problem since the very first photographs.
Every step in evidence collection literally served to put someone’s name on it, so those people can go before a jury and say “yeah, that’s the stick i used to get the video from their security system”
They’re rarely called,.AFAIK, mostly because “that video must be faked” needs some corroborating evidence to be plausible. And for that matter, so does “this video shows him robbing my store!”
When i was in the police I’d often collect CCTV from store owners etc.
I’d usually supervise the download to make sure I only got what I needed. In my statement I’d reference that I’d supervised the download and that the footage hadn’t been tampered with.
It wasnt a big deal.
Adding on that as a compulsory requirement, or making it so CCTV systems add hidden info into the meta data wouldn’t be difficult.
Tech folk seem to not realize that “this image could have been faked!” has been a problem since the very first photographs.
Every step in evidence collection literally served to put someone’s name on it, so those people can go before a jury and say “yeah, that’s the stick i used to get the video from their security system”
They’re rarely called,.AFAIK, mostly because “that video must be faked” needs some corroborating evidence to be plausible. And for that matter, so does “this video shows him robbing my store!”