jarednjames said:
Of course, I'd trust video over an eye witness any day.
You'd really want to do some damage to go out of your way and edit video for that purpose.
It would definitely have to be explicitely intentional, and at that, you'd be leaving traces behind, such as:
nismaratwork said:
I'd add, what Freddie Wong can edit, another can find those telltales.
One of the colleagues I worked with in the military had a brother who worked on visual effects for The Matrix. I never met his brother, but they were twins, and they had the same bug, as did I, so I got an earful. I even did a preliminary interview with the team in the hopes of doing an article on their network/storage requirements.
As for telltales, they're prolific. Given a single, ordinary picture involving a subject and it's background, if altered, there aren't just a few telltales, there are dozens, if not hundreds. Fuzzy logic and a host of algorithms available to video forensics can spot even a single pixel which appears to be out of place, given known RAW to JPG algorithms for modern cameras, and the same for chip to video compression schemas.
My point is, when you wind up with a video frame with pixels that cannot possibly have come from any known image using any known commercial video compression algorithm, you have a fake.
A corollary is that the only known way to fake a fake (to make it look real) is to alter the video, then stream it as if it were a camera feed, allowing for compression, and walla.
Problems: This means that it's an inside job, complete with access logs, and even then, my friends tell me there are ways of spotting this (they call it "older") trick.
So... Fake a video? Not likely.
Fake a real-time, date/time coded video stored on third-party servers with auditing seals?
Yeah, right. Figure that one out and wright your ticket to the next blockbuster movie hit.
As it is, police footage is largely (but not always) stored in a locked case inside the trunk. Either Internal Affairs or a similarly-dislocated unit reporting on high has access, and any unauthorized access would result in an immediate investigation as to how/why the LEO who signed out the vehicle allowed this to happen.
I think this is why you see so much police video, even that which incriminates the LEOs themselves, available on YouTube.
The trick is to remember that video evidence is often used as a means of identification or establishing a time-line... most crimes are not caught on video as they happen. There's also the matter of time: you can edit video quickly, but to cover your tracks well enough to not be hauled up on felony charges?... better be REALLY fast, and you need M.M.O. like any other crime. Generally speaking, video is collected VERY rapidly, and what if you edit 3 angles, but miss the ATM cam? Whooooops!
More than that, if you warp one video stream, telltales will be left, and if you warp a second stream, all it takes is one pixel of discrepancy to invalidate both video streams.
No, the only way I see of conducting the perfect video crime is...