Welcome to Douglas Wilson's The Plodcast, presented by Canon Press.

Yeah. Yes, God, God, God don't never change.

Welcome to the Plodcast this is episode 200. Can you believe that we've done this

200 times that's kind of hard to believe but there it is we have and I don't

you may be one of those stalwart true blowers who

have listened to 200 of these babies and if so then well done to you right so the

thing I want to talk about here is our what is acceptable evidence in our

current court system and I want to propose I want to suggest that our rules of evidence need to catch up with what technology

has done.

I would like to propose that we start agitating for a moratorium on digital evidence in order

to convict someone of a crime. Maybe not an absolute moratorium,

but I think we ought to revisit what is acceptable.

Let's say there's a crime committed or an alleged crime committed and there is

surveillance tape there's surveillance footage.

In order to introduce that into court, everybody involved has to believe and has to trust

that that evidence was not manipulated, altered, or falsely generated.

What is the protection, in short, I'm asking what is the protection of someone who's going to be railroaded for a crime he

didn't commit? What protection is there against a deep fake video?

So and this extends into everything when the cops swoop down on somebody's house and they seize his computer and they haul his computer off and then three weeks later announced

that they found a treasure trove of child pornography on this guy's computer.

Question, how hard would it be to frame that guy?

It's just one thumb drive, right?

...