I'm not sure the prosecution part is as important as the public's image. The fact is that someone can ruin your life with a fake video, and the tools for doing so are becoming easier and faster to use. Regardless of if the court believes the video or not, your social and professional life could already be ruined by the time they view the video.

To add to this, even if someone knows a video is fake, if it’s realistic enough then the image will persist.

But perhaps the most damaging aspect of all this is the erosion of truth, in people’s general feeling that nothing can be trusted.

>But perhaps the most damaging aspect of all this is the erosion of truth, in people’s general feeling that nothing can be trusted.

Might this be an opportunity for crypto education? Digital signatures are pretty powerful.

No. Adding cryptography to video recordings is the worst of both Canudos. It can verify sources but not the literal truth. All that would do is half-mirror society where any ole bullshit signed by the credible is accepted while man on the street police brutality or politicians making out with a 12 year old are called fake.

You can trust what you see in person, without screens.

I've seen many an up close magic trick in person that I've been unable to figure out. In person only prevents digital shenanigans, not _all_ shenanigans.

Which would be fine if we still lived in small tribes of hunter-gatherers, but we don’t.

Wait for augmented reality glasses to become a thing

>>after the charges were reduced as part of a deal made with his lawyer.

That is more likely why they need the 2nd piece, They want to make a deal, they never want to go to trial, so if they have overwhelming evidence then 99% of guilty people, and 90% of innocent people will take the deal offered

I think you’re absolutely correct. Courts are backed up and trials are expensive. Big incentives for the prosecution to strike pleas.

The plea system needs reform, something Larry Krasner seems to be doing rather well with in Philadelphia.

>>I'm not sure video ever went as far as many people think it does in terms of criminal prosecution. My experience suggests that video alone is often not enough for a conviction.

Yet, people are serving life sentences over eyewitness testimony.

>>I'm one of the increasing number of helmet camera cyclists. Last year, a driver nearly hit me head on and stopped nearby, so I went over to politely tell them to pay better attention.

Cops have already a lot of work and probably didn't care about your case. In the video you clearly turned around and followed the guy hundreds of yards. Almost hit me or whatever...not suggesting that he should have threatened you with a screwdriver, but you shouldn't push your luck. You never know who the other person is and in what mood you find them. "You're on camera" and "I'm calling the cops" can be famous last words. He didn't hit you, and you should have called the cops, if he broke traffic laws and you felt so strongly.

> Cops have already a lot of work and probably didn't care about your case. In the video you clearly turned around and followed the guy hundreds of yards. Almost hit me or whatever...not suggesting that he should have threatened you with a screwdriver, but you shouldn't push your luck. You never know who the other person is and in what mood you find them. "You're on camera" and "I'm calling the cops" can be famous last words. He didn't hit you, and you should have called the cops, if he broke traffic laws and you felt so strongly.

Actually, the cops cared more than I expected, as I have been keen to emphasize to cyclist friends of mine who believe that the cops don't care at all. If the cops didn't care about my case they wouldn't have even responded. They are overburdened, absolutely, but they put in more effort than I think most people would notice. I actually helped them out a lot by contacting Uber independently, which got their subpoena processed as it seems to have been missed by Uber. If you make it easy for them to help you, they're more likely to.

As for whether I should have followed the guy, I have talked to many drivers who passed me dangerously over the past decade and very few react violently. I believe offering feedback to drivers is valuable, particularly given that the vast majority of them are simply ignorant about how to drive safely around cyclists. Many were not aware that they were driving dangerously. Many drivers apologize and say they will do better, and I believe them. Calling the cops because someone passed you too closely will almost never lead to any changes, in contrast. The best you can hope for there is that your report gets added to some traffic safety statistics, but I'm skeptical that occurs in Austin, TX, where I lived at the time. If you have any better ideas, I'm listening.

Also, "hundreds of yards" isn't right. Pulling out Google Maps gives a rough estimate of slightly less than 100 yards in total.

Watched the video. Nice job with following through.

Do you think the driver got closer to you to avoid the other cyclist going the other way?

It's not clear. He was preparing to make a left turn anyway, so he would have to move left at some point. I think he moved left prematurely, without checking for oncoming traffic. Maybe he was also trying to avoid the other cyclist, I don't know. He should have slowed down and waited for both cyclists to pass.

I see why they needed more than the video. It's pretty dark and hard to see who exactly the individual is.

How did you get the GPS data from Uber?

Presumably the police did, and it's not unreasonable for Uber to willingly assist investigations of their drivers by providing such data.

I didn't. The police did with a subpoena.