Video Evidence

Today's article from the New York Times isn't the first time someone has brought up digital manipulation of videos and the very realistic fake videos that can be created, but that doesn't make it any less worrying.

That said, I'm actually not as worried as one might expect about the prospect of larger numbers of more convincing fake videos. It will require people to be more cautious, basically, because even the most well-made fake videos still have to explain where the video was made and why it was made. These are details that can be checked and used to determine whether a video is real or not, regardless of how real it looks. And frankly, even if we know the person actually was at an interview at the right place and time, asking them what they actually intended to say and which remarks they're willing to stand behind is certainly a thing we can do.

I certainly don't hold out much hope that people will actually do that sort of additional checking, given that we can't even seem to get a handle on existing sources of fake news. However, I don't think fake videos of this type will add that much more damage over what we've already got.

The concern about it being easier for anybody to disavow things they've actually been recorded saying is actually more of a concern for me. There aren't a whole lot of good ways to prove that a recording that's been made actually is real in the face of the subject claiming it isn't. Basically, the only option we'd have is the same as the above - ask them what they're willing to stand behind, and if that answer keeps changing, then that's the best we're going to get as far as figuring out how honest they are.