It wouldn’t ever be inadmissible, but it be less and less trusted until it eventually would no longer become a “smoking gun”.
It would be essentially regarded as another form a “eyewitness testimony”, it would require an actual person to attest to its authenticity. If you recorded a street fight, you then would attest to what you can remember, who started the fight, then attest that you didn’t know any of them, and that you did not edit the footage and no one has touched it until you submitted the evidence.
CCTV wouldn’t be “absolute undeniable proof”, it would be linked to the storeowner’s credibility and security practices. For big systems, like government owned buildings, some IT expert would have to testify how the system works, then the security guard on duty will have to testify that no one has tampered with it, probably a neutral third-party IT expert to verify that the government employees isn’t spewing BS technobabble. We would probably need some sort of “citizen’s oversight commission” and people from said commission to tag along and monitor what cops are doing, make sure cops don’t start using AI to edit the footage, ensure the chain of custody is working, kinda like elections and poll watchers type of thing.
Problem I could see is, if you challenge the validity of a contract, and want to get a handwriting expert, you currently have to pay out of pocket. I fear the same for video/audio evidence, if you wanna chalenge it, you have to hire your own expert, and that is gonna get a lot of poorer, innocent people jailed over fake evidence.
So… for authoritarian/totalitarian countries with even less transparency, there’s gonna be a stronger wave of doubt and conspiracy theories about “the government framed him/her”, heck, even in democratic countries, these conspirscy theories are already a thing, people are gomma cry “deepfake” regardless of if the evidence is legit.
It wouldn’t ever be inadmissible, but it be less and less trusted until it eventually would no longer become a “smoking gun”.
It would be essentially regarded as another form a “eyewitness testimony”, it would require an actual person to attest to its authenticity. If you recorded a street fight, you then would attest to what you can remember, who started the fight, then attest that you didn’t know any of them, and that you did not edit the footage and no one has touched it until you submitted the evidence.
CCTV wouldn’t be “absolute undeniable proof”, it would be linked to the storeowner’s credibility and security practices. For big systems, like government owned buildings, some IT expert would have to testify how the system works, then the security guard on duty will have to testify that no one has tampered with it, probably a neutral third-party IT expert to verify that the government employees isn’t spewing BS technobabble. We would probably need some sort of “citizen’s oversight commission” and people from said commission to tag along and monitor what cops are doing, make sure cops don’t start using AI to edit the footage, ensure the chain of custody is working, kinda like elections and poll watchers type of thing.
Problem I could see is, if you challenge the validity of a contract, and want to get a handwriting expert, you currently have to pay out of pocket. I fear the same for video/audio evidence, if you wanna chalenge it, you have to hire your own expert, and that is gonna get a lot of poorer, innocent people jailed over fake evidence.
So… for authoritarian/totalitarian countries with even less transparency, there’s gonna be a stronger wave of doubt and conspiracy theories about “the government framed him/her”, heck, even in democratic countries, these conspirscy theories are already a thing, people are gomma cry “deepfake” regardless of if the evidence is legit.