> The inverse is equally problematic and harder to solve: those in power discrediting real photos/videos/phone-calls as “deep fakes.”
This is true. Although witnesses and/or the person behind the camera could sign the video. They might want to, in fact, if they thought they might be witnessing something illegal and might need to defend themselves later.
I guess I'm imagining a future where signed videos are common. Unsigned content or content signed by some random entity would draw suspicion. Maybe not enough to keep people from seeing it, but enough that it wouldn't spread like wildfire like it does today.
There could be disputed videos, too-- Where one party signs and one doesn't. Or maybe a situation where two parties secretly ally against another to run a more convincing smear. Hmm, there's all kinds of weirdness that a system like this might create. Maybe a cyberpunk author could explore it further :)
This is true. Although witnesses and/or the person behind the camera could sign the video. They might want to, in fact, if they thought they might be witnessing something illegal and might need to defend themselves later.
I guess I'm imagining a future where signed videos are common. Unsigned content or content signed by some random entity would draw suspicion. Maybe not enough to keep people from seeing it, but enough that it wouldn't spread like wildfire like it does today.
There could be disputed videos, too-- Where one party signs and one doesn't. Or maybe a situation where two parties secretly ally against another to run a more convincing smear. Hmm, there's all kinds of weirdness that a system like this might create. Maybe a cyberpunk author could explore it further :)