Timeline for What is valid evidence in a world with perfect CGI technology?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2016 at 7:44 | comment | added | user | @Pedro Today's criminal justice system also relies heavily on evidence and testimony (sometimes testimony that is effectively an interpretation of the evidence). False testimony, lying under oath, etc., is already illegal in a lot of countries, if not all. False accusation of guilt might also be illegal under similar provisions. In a world where everyone can create perfect photo "evidence" that is indistinguishable from the real thing, the consequences of this for the accused can potentially be huge. It then makes sense that a society would punish harshly anyone who tries and is caught. | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 0:08 | comment | added | Pedro | Good answer. Not sure I agree with, "in a world where much evidence can be easily faked, the penalty for false testimony would be much harsher." Today's criminal justice system seems to operate the opposite way: easy/common/low-impact crimes are (usually) punished less harshly than those that aren't. Hundreds of people get speeding tickets every day but the penalty is a relatively low fine. Murder generally takes more effort to plan and carry out, is less common, has a broader impact on society, and is punished more harshly. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 21:05 | comment | added | user | @D.Spetz If you do run afoul of a shadowy group, do make sure that you know how to handle 3.5" floppies before FedEx'ing them. And keep good backups. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 19:12 | comment | added | D.Spetz | Yeah, the real clincher here is going to be evidence garnered from an impartial third-party. If you have a picture that clearly shows that you were at home during the robbery, but four different security cams show that you were there, the weight of the evidence lies in favor of you being guilty. Those four camera feeds could be faked, but Occam says a conspiracy against you is less likely than your guilt. Unless you are the protagonist and run afoul of a shadowy group, a la The Net... | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 16:49 | comment | added | user | @TomášZato I think I did answer that, but perhaps in a somewhat roundabout fashion. Anything that can't easily be faked and can be corrobated is likely to be admissible as reasonable evidence -- the same as today. Courts aren't about binary yes/no questions; we could have computers for that. Rather, the job of a court is to interpret both the law and evidence presented, and determine how something most likely happened, and whether that is in line with what the letter of the law and previous case law establishes as either legal or illegal. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 13:25 | comment | added | Tomáš Zato | That's a lot of info to build on, but my question was much more specific - what, if anything, is hard enough evidence in such setting? You actually answered what I did not ask about at all and what I could figure out - and partialy did. You answered "What would a world with perfect CGI look like?" Again, it's nice and useful answer, but to slightly different\ question. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 13:02 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 865 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2016 at 12:42 | comment | added | Paul7926 | Meh, was typing my answer at the same time you were and yours is much better structured. Well played sir. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 12:32 | history | answered | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |