Unless you can find a way to weave cryptography into light, it will always be possible to trick a video camera into recording something that is "fake". Trust is what society is built upon, we're not going to get away from it now.

Yes, I don't know if this problem can be solved, but it would be folly if no one was trying to crack it. We should always pursue ways to remove trust from vital social systems.

How about a government enforced mandate that everyone gets a secure computer embedded into their skull in a way that removal will kill them, with a camera that continuously records video, sound and GPS positioning? This could then digitally signed and timestamped by the individual's computer.

Then, when a questionable event happens, the video of all participants and anyone nearby can be replayed. Then, all videos of participants can be replayed to make sure they match up, and the video of the time leading up to the event could be scrutinized. Furthermore any one who visited that area in the recent past could be checked to make sure they didn't create some sort of hologram or something that the participants watched rather than the real thing.

I do not get that point of view. You still need to trust the intention behind whatever is cryptographicly verified. You will never have a verification of what happens inside of someone's skull (or for the scifi counter arguments: inside of whatever else they store their thoughts in).

Having cryptography without trust in some form of desire for teamwork in your fellow humans defeats the whole purpose of cryptography... But I admit this is more about my ideology and reasonable people can disagree about it.

I just hope we can figure out a way to create watermarks, like maybe some kind of hash sum incorporating an asymmetric key which is injected by the camera / device, which can provide verification of source and which cannot be overwritten.

Possibly could involve some kind of blockchain tech similar to https://proofofexistence.com. It doesn't solve all of the problems but at least we can begin establishing a record of source. The point is, something needs to be done to augment the trust we have in journalists because it's easy to trick or buy people out.

You really do not need anything that complicated (definitely not a block chain, when you only need the merkle tree). All of this is exactly what cryptographic signatures are for, a tech that is decades old.

And as mentioned in the above comments, it does not help with analog loopholes and trust in the person being photographed.

The blockchain provides an immutable public record. Yes, not necessary but still an interesting approach and actually a decent fit for a blockchain. A blockchain might still be an over fit but it's useful if I claim to have an undoctored video at a certain point in time but don't want to release it, immediately, and need a distributed way to validate that claim.

> And as mentioned in the above comments, it does not help with analog loopholes and trust in the person being photographed.

Like I said in my above comment, it doesn't solve all of the problems but at least we can begin establishing a record of source.

I am pretty sure that what you are calling a block chain is actually just a single hash or at most a Merkle tree. You do not need a consensus algorithm (PoW or PoS or whatever), i.e. you do not need a block chain if all you want is decentralized verification of a current or future publication.

I was just making an arbitrary suggestion based on previous work by proofofexistence.com. I didn't suggest it was the only way or the best way forward.

I realize that people all the time try to say "Blockchain would be great for ____" so you're probably a little hypersensitive and I get that, but the suggestion of a blockchain was arbitrary and tangential to the real point of my post, so I don't really feel like getting into it right now.