Funny that it never came up in any of my civics classes.
Of course the uses admitted in public are far from the only uses.
You can be harmed with information not even about you. It could be about a relative, or a relative of a prosecutor, or a judge, or landlord. Try to imagine the power available to Google, Facebook, Amazon, AT&T, and Sprint over the employees of the legal system and over politicians, and their staffs, on the basis of their detailed data collections, including live audio and images.
Overall, the New York Times coverage has been quite poor and conciliatory toward those involved with Epstein, especially Gates and Wexner.
Or - and here is a crazy idea - there is not much to dig up.
Obviously if you hang too much on r/conspiracy you will see crazy angles to anything. (For HN readers who do not: I encourage you to have a look, it's ... interesting).
Despite your insinuation, I don’t spend any time on conspiracy subreddits. But if you truly think the entire extent of what was going on is out in the open, I admire your credulity.
Well put, it is quite transparent that something shady was happening there. But it seems no one is interested looking into it.
Second, all deep-fakes are going to do is add another dimension of plausible deniability. Just like "fake news" is now used by all sides to discredit any and all unfavorable reporting (even if true).
-- "That wasn't me, it's clearly deep-fake fake news!"