I think that it’s better that everyone collectively realize that video is no longer default-trustworthy in a widespread manner, if the alternative would have been the public finding out only after a long cycle of misuse by high-level actors and subsequent whistleblowing à la PRISM/Snowden.
however the forensic or semi-forensic tools should be given to people to help them verify the videos. On the other hand I suspect that these tools are not released so wrongdoers are not able to test their fakes against the tools (security by obscurity)
How do you guys handle redaction? I'm sure even when trusted individuals are in charge of authoring, there's still a potential of accidental leakage which would probably be best mitigated by a team specifically looking for any slip ups.
Team has a good sense, typically. In this case, the names of the columns in the Bot Management feature table seemed sensitive. The person who included that in the master document we were working from added a comment: “Should redact column names.” John and I usually catch anything the rest of the team may have missed. For me, pays to have gone to law school, but also pays to have studied Computer Science in college and be technical enough to still understand both the SQL and Rust code here.
Probably because he could check legalities of a release himself without council. It is probably equivalent to educating yourself on your rights and laws so if you get pulled over by a cop who may try to do things that you can legally refuse, you can say no.
I think it's really cool as well. Although, it does start to look a little wonky with quotes and probably some other characters and makes skimming a bit harder. Maybe monospaced fonts will start to handle this better if it gets popular?
reply