From: den Otter <email@example.com>
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Indeed. What's the value of surveillance video when anyone can create
>> own on a computer at any time?
>What good would that do them?
It would enable them to demonstrate that anyone (including pranksters and litigants) can make phony, bogus surveillance videos, and therefore no one should use surveillance video as evidence.
>[from a previous post]
>"Now, enter the surveillance system. All data is stored at separate
>places (multiple redundancy) and for cross-referencing. When trying
>to fake evidence, one would have to break into *all* the encrypted
>databases (in underground vaults) and change *all* the relevant data
>(the nasty thing is that seemingly unrelated data can nonetheless
>serve to check the validity of primary data). This is a very tough job
>to do right, and in my scenario various civil rights (non-government)
>organizations and government agancies would have joint control
>over the databases, breathing down eachothers neck all the time,
>checking for every possible irregularity. Imagine cops with cams
>integrated into their uniforms, their cars, their guns etc.,
>monitored by the people and government alike. I bet the level of
>authority abuse would drop drastically."
This does not preclude the possibility that the builders of the surveillance
system can themselves use it to produce fake videos. Those who encrypt the
databases (or direct such encryption) can still conspire to enter false data
by secret agreement among themselves.
Failing that, malicious conspirator hackers could simply stage a Sting operation to frame someone. The danger here pertains not so much to missing some crime, but to fabricating crime where it does not exist? -zen