4 ms·
Photos that have undergone such processing should not be admissable as evidence in court. ...and from an even more dystopian angle, although this may be a "bug
by userbinator 3y ago
Photos that have undergone such processing should not be admissable as evidence in court.
...and from an even more dystopian angle, although this may be a "bug", it shows just how easy it is for them to selectively change how things appear if they wanted to.
- _boffin_ 3y agohttps://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/stlr/blog/view/417 https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/stlr/blog/vi...
- 8organicbits 3y agoIt could be dismissed under Daubert. You'd need an expert witness to show that the camera in question does not provide evidence in a way that follows well established scientific methods, or doesn't have a known error rate. The judge is then the gate keeper and can choose if it's suitable. For a camera that applies a bunch of random hacks that the engineering team pulled out of thin air, it seems possible.