3 ms·
In the court of public opinion, yes, this is true - video is no longer proof that something happened. I guess that's a price we pay for technological progress.
by mjw_byrne 8y ago
In the court of public opinion, yes, this is true - video is no longer proof that something happened. I guess that's a price we pay for technological progress. Presumably at some point it will be possible (and easy and accessible) to generate body fluids with someone else's DNA in them, at which point DNA evidence will suffer a similar hit.
In a court of law, presumably video will now be subject to the same scrutiny as photos. IANAL but I imagine photos do not "stand alone" - the side that uses them has to make a convincing argument that they are trustworthy.
- function_seven 8y agoRight. Evidence is more than a singular "smoking gun" photo or video. You typically rely on a whole collection of corroborating evidence to build a case. It's the court of public opinion that worries me. That court is very important to the functioning of a liberal democracy. If the facts themselves are always open to suspicion, a society cannot defend itself very well against tyranny.