[DINKDINK]

>This comment seems to imply that all court admissible video evidence comes from trusted chains of custody and thereby trusted sources, which isn't necessarily the case.

What's stopping a defense attorney informing a jury about DeepFakes and having that fact factor into their "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterium for criminal cases?

DeepFakes have more potential in PsyOps than legal cases.

[matt4077]

Just informing them of that possibility will render such evidence basically useless. Once video can be faked where it can no longer be detected, video just doesn't carry any more information than, say, "we got this anonymous letter saying the defendant is guilty".

So, yes, that information should be given to the jury (as soon as it becomes accurate), and it will lower the potential for false positives (convictions), but with an equal and opposite increase in false negatives.

[quietbritishjim]

> Just informing them of that possibility will render such evidence basically useless.

Is a verbal statement from an impartial witness useless? What if they say recognise the defendant as the criminal they witnessed? Obviously it's not as ideal as unfakable video evidence, but it is useful and has been the basis of legal systems for the millennia before computers and photography arrived.

Fakable video evidence is somewhere between these: you still have to account for the possibility that the person isn't honest, but don't have to worry about the fallibility of human memory.

[Bjartr]

Assuming, of course, that currently video is an equally occurring factor in both values and invalid convictions