*"If it is not already here, the time will come when we will not be able to believe our eyes (when it comes to picture and video "evidence"). There are already many well publicized incidents of retouched or altered photographs used to falsely enhance news stories. What will happen when even experts can no longer tell that a picture has been "touched up?"

*In the early days of speed cameras and traffic-light cameras in the UK, they were film-only, because the evidence of digital images could not be held to be reliable, whereas fiddling negatives (as opposed to prints) has always been a major challenge.   Even though digital images have become steadily easier to doctor, this restriction on the use of digital evidence has long since been lifted, mainly because film cameras run out of film (and so miss perps and lose out on revenue from fines), whereas digital traffic cameras, having a dial-up link direct to Mammon Central, make the Duracell Bunny look like a bone-idle slacker.

It probably is fair to say that nobody is going to bother fiddling a photograph, just for the sake of pretending that an innocent Joe Public jumped a red on the A303, but the ability to do so exists.  Whether a government will be able to resist the temptation to abuse this technology, for the sake of discrediting its opponents, is another matter.   I'm not optimistic.

The video version of the nightmare is still some way off, I suspect, but still a realistic threat.