> What I don’t like about this coverage is that it ignores the much more salient fact that the prosecution has utterly collapsed in the last two days. Well, t

> What I don’t like about this coverage is that it ignores the much more salient fact that the prosecution has utterly collapsed in the last two days. Well, this post (or rather the HN thread) is about a mention to the technology and its impacts on society, not the case itself. Being so politically charged it's a much worse topic for an online forum > This is a standard objection in any criminal proceeding when digital evidence is introduced. As it should be - they need to understand what is going on to make fair calls. In this case the lawyers and prosecutors (and judges, and jury) may have no idea that when we say a pixel is 'imagined and created' when magnification is applied it is very unlikely that enough pixels will be created to insert an human-recognizable object where there was none Come to think of it, software to introduce objects when zooming in on image/video would be quite challenging. It's an interesting problem