zlacker

>>haramb+(OP)
Gosh there's a lot of corollary evidence pointing to his guilt but this is likely going to become more and more common and force the use of a lot more technical forensic resources.

Finding an original copy on a go-pro would likely be pretty compelling evidence but this (and the more scary politically centered questions like this) are why I wish we had a way to build a durable chain of custody into these technologies. It is infeasible from everything I've seen but it would be a big win for society.

>>munk-a+K5
Put private key into every digital camera and hash/sign every frame. That private key is accompanied with manufacturer signature and can't be easily extracted. Mark all unsigned media as suspicious.

>>vbezhe+m6
"and can't be easily extracted" is doing a lot of work there. People are very good at reverse-engineering. There would soon be a black market for 'clean' private keys that could be used to sign any video you want.

>>widder+o7
There's also always the "analog loophole". Display the AI-generated video on a sufficiently high-resolution / color gamut display and record it on whatever device has convenient specs for making the recording, then do some light post-processing to fix moire/color/geometry. This would likely be detectable, but could shift the burden of (dis-)proof to the defendant, who might not have the money for the expert witnesses required to properly argue the technical merits of their case.

More likely, the signing would have to use compression-resistant steganography, otherwise it's pretty easy to just remux/re-encode the video to strip the metadata.