The general principle is called “chain of custody” [1] and it seems odd that it wasn’t mentioned in the article. Not a lawyer, but it normally doesn’t seem that rigorous? Someone testifies about how the video was recorded and stored, starting from the camera, to show that it’s unlikely to have been tampered with.
So it seems like if it comes from a security camera and you can say how it was recorded then that’s good, but if it’s video found on social media and you don’t know who recorded it then that should count against it.
I think before building anything, it might make sense to see what security cameras already do?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody