I think it’s already irrelevant: cryptographic proofs of video evidence is difficult to communicate to audiences while watermarks will be learned by AI as trusted and injected into AI videos anyway. Also, in between the lens and your eyeball is usually a pipeline of editing applied anyway so either the cryptographic signature ends up with every layer signing the modifications applied + the previous layer or you stack watermarks. But ultimately the original problem is how to communicate the cryptographic chain validity.
Most users don't care, but in theory a newspaper could use this tech to verify certain camera images and their readers could just trust that they've vetted things.
In practice, ordinary users don't care much about mainstream media anymore.
In theory this is where zero-knowledge proofs can come in. That would allow you to apply transforms to the video (crop, contrast, resize etc) and be able to prove the exact transform that was applied. However it's still computationally expensive.
To whom? I can imagine starting wars with fake videos.
It's hard to imagine someone kvetching about not being able to sideload apps to their phone reaching that point of significance. I don't mean to completely dismiss very real concerns about what people can and can't do with their purchases, but OTOH war involves actual people actually dying, and manipulating media is a fantastic way to get one.
removing methods to circumvent monitoring and control of information makes it easier for a bad actor to take advantave of these tools. Yes it's nice for the good guys to be able to keep their code secure, but do you want a dictator to be able to do that?
