Indeed, as there are more and more cameras around (including autonomous ones of increasingly tiny size) imagery of the videographer will probably become a major authentication factor.
- We have mechanisms to prove that video is taken after a certain time (show a newspaper on the video, or get the video cryptographically timestamped via a trusted server).
- We have mechanisms to detect if something is taken before a certain time, by doing something interactive and unlikely with live viewers.
- We have mechanisms to detect if something has been modified from its original form (signing).
You might be able to make a CCD chip that signs every frame with a private key, and then ships the frame off to a public signing server too. Producing that CCD along with the video taken might be proof. But then you could defeat that with a display hooked to the camera, feeding the doctored image to the trusted camera.
I remember learning about Stalin's photo retouching, and reading about the systematized photo retouching and censorship in 1984. At the time I thought it was completely impractical, there's just too much work to do and not enough people to do it. Let's hear it for automation, putting the auto in Autocracy! :)
How does that defeat the cryptographic timestamping?
But you still wouldn't be able to guarantee that that actually happened.. if we have enough compute and good enough algorithms, you could spoof a scene in real time on a small display strapped to the front of the trusted camera. Even though the trusted camera is recording what it sees, what it sees isn't really what is happening.
So we still don't get back to being able to use video as evidence.
However, I'll still be optimistic and hope that with the increasing number of cameras, people will be less likely to engage in activities where they shouldn't. The opposite argument would be that with the increasing technology to fake such an activity, the amount of 'my twitter account was hacked' incidents will rise.
I guess only time will tell?
I can see this being used primarily against those in power though, so you aren't wrong.
A deeply closeted gay man (with a wife and kids) taking their first steps out of the closet and kissing a man could ruin his career with those things. Is that OK?
Consensus is not sufficient. This is why rights-based approaches are developed. It has to be OK to live an unpopular lifestyle that's not harmful to others.
I'm not suggesting a mechanism that operates on the 51% rule. I'm suggesting we 'elect' certain people to serve in roles that allow quick consensus to be formed when there is disagreement. Put those judgments in a safe place and you have 'laws' that can be referenced in the future.
In a world where entirely realistic body images can be created of anyone, it becomes possible to threaten to "leak nudes" of anyone, even if they've never taken any.
It is also the world where nude photos of anyone have exactly zero value, because everyone who wants them can generate those themselves and there's no easy way to distinguish between real, doctored and fake ones.