Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PeacefullyFighting t1_j6sgvje wrote

Security cameras will become obsolete and the implications of that are astounding


Longjumping-Tie-7573 t1_j6sp0zc wrote

Security camera recordings will be obsolete, but folks will still trust their own cameras to show them their situation at hand.


KamikazeArchon t1_j6stbf1 wrote

No, they won't. "Use in court" is not a common use case for security camera recordings.

Further, even the "court" use case doesn't actually go away. Plenty of things can be faked today; that doesn't mean they commonly are faked.

A printed contract can be faked just by printing up a different contract and claiming it's the original. That doesn't stop contracts from being used in court. Falsifying evidence, after all, is its own separate serious crime - and getting caught makes you look incredibly guilty for the original crime (if defending) or makes your case collapse (if prosecuting).

As a more general statement, laypeople commonly overestimate the value of "hard evidence" in court. Sure, it's important, but it's neither as common nor as necessary as people seem to think. Many cases are decided on nothing more than witness testimony.


FawksyBoxes t1_j6swr92 wrote

Almost all printers print an invisible to the naked eye dots that show the date time and IP of where it was printed for exactly this reason. This is why most printers require color even when printing in Black and White.


rogert2 t1_j6t267y wrote

I find this hard to believe.

For one thing, there are very many printers out there that only print black-and-white. I happen to own one of the most popular models, which (when I bought it) was the most popular printer being bought on Amazon. It takes black toner only.

There are also many printers out there whose IP addresses are meaningless, because they're on a private network. My home printer has an IP of something like, which is what my common-as-dirt home wifi router gave it. So, it's not going to be very helpful to know the IP of the printer or even the computer that sent the print job.

Yes, there are many circumstances where these problems don't apply, and yes, there are undoubtedly people out there trying to falsify evidence who wouldn't know to take any of the simple steps necessary to defeat "hidden fingerprinting" like this. But it seems so unreliable that I would be surprised if vendors even tried.


Ferret_Faama t1_j6uudhn wrote

Even if all of this were true it's ignoring the fact you could just spoof the time to the printer.


PeacefullyFighting t1_j6t1nbs wrote

All a defense lawyer has to do is get good at using the tech and upload 20-30 of the exact same video with 20-30 different people to social media and use as evidence. I'm sure this breaks some rules but you know it would be done, most commonly for the elites


oddinpress t1_j6vgrnm wrote

Not necessarily. It may be the case that security cameras evolve to record onto physical unalterable storage like sensitive tape in a black box. And only something stored in those means is admissible in court.

Law would evolve


Orc_ t1_j6xrbv7 wrote

Not if they're timestamped and NFT'd (yes, those NFTs) as much as many of you hate them they're part of a chain of technology (pun intended) that will be very helpful in the future