I wonder if this will make all forms of surveillance, video or otherwise, inadmissible in court in the near future. It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch for a lawyer to make an argument for reasonable doubt, with any electronic media now.
> I wonder if this will make all forms of surveillance, video or otherwise, inadmissible in court in the near future.
No, it won't. Just as it does now, video evidence (like any other evidence that isn't testimony) will need to be supported by associated evidence (including, ultimately, testimony) as to its provenance.
> It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch for a lawyer to make an argument for reasonable doubt,
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is only the standard for criminal convictions, and even then is based on the totality of evidence tending support or refute guilt, its not a standard each individual piece of evidence must clear for admissibility.
Bad evidence is not the same thing as inadmissible evidence. Evidence is admitted, and then the fact finder determines whether to consider it, and how much weight to give it. It is likely that surveillance video will be slightly less credible now, but can still be part of a large, convincing body of evidence.
Video evidence already requires attestation to be admissible evidence. You need a witness to claim that the footage comes from a camera that was placed there, that it was collected from the night of, etc. It's not like the prosecutor gets a tape in the mail and they can present it as evidence.
By that rationale, all witness testimony and written evidence should already be inadmissible.
This website focuses too much on the technical with little regard for the social a bit too often. Though in general, videos being easily fakable is still scary.
I wonder if this will make all forms of surveillance, video or otherwise, inadmissible in court in the near future. It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch for a lawyer to make an argument for reasonable doubt, with any electronic media now.