Re: [PLUG] Morphing & Graphics

[Rich Freeman <r-plug@thefreemanclan.net>]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Keith C. Perry
<kperry@daotechnologies.com> wrote:
> No matter how you slice it "trust" will alway be challenged by
> someone who has a reason to not trust.  If you don't trust the sole
> proprietor, then someone will say let a 3rd party run the cam.  Even
> if there was zero cost to that, there would still be someone that
> says they don't trust the 3rd party (and why), which puts you back at
> square one.

Except that the 3rd party could have the economies of scale to
demonstrate a reliable chain of custody.  Obviously simply the fact
that they're somebody else doesn't make them more trustworthy.

The 3rd party could use cameras that are tamper-proof that sign their
video.  The video could go into a repository that is protected.
Access to the repository could require participation of multiple
employees, following documented SOPs.  All their practices could be
audited by yet another trusted 3rd party.

A sole proprietor couldn't afford to do all that stuff, because it is
a ton of overhead if all they have are a few cameras in their store.
A 3rd party that manages cameras in 50k stores could easily afford to
make their process more robust.


>
> Functionally, I fine trust is better stated as a double negative,
> party A has not, not give me a reason to trust them.  When you dig
> through cases you find this is why reputation is the most important
> thing people have.  Its a longer process but ultimately it minimizes
> the risk that someone or say a jury, is being deceived.

Well, that is another vote in favor of 3rd parties doing this stuff,
because they actually could have a reputation.  If you record your own
security video chances are you'll never use it, but if you do use it
chances are you'll only use it once.  You'll have zero reputation.

Sure, I don't support bans on technology, and think they're pointless.
I was just commenting on the direction that all of this could take.
If video evidence becomes trivial to falsify then courts will either
require a ton of hurdles to submit it (which makes it less accessible
to people not hiring professionals), or courts will just pretend the
technology doesn't exist and lots of people get punished in courts for
things they didn't do.  The latter seems to be the approach courts
take to eyewitness testimony today (which is extremely unreliable, but
people go to jail on the basis of it every day).

-- 
Rich
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug