Which means it's useless if the entire video is pure CGI -- because then there's no deep-fakery
Yes, there still is deep-fakery. Generative algorithms have a fingerprint.
And that fingerprint can not only be detected, but be concluded to be different from any real source.
There is no such thing as a flawless CGI, every piece of data is uniquely identifiable and traceable.
You won't go to prison over deepfakes, because you're innocent until proven guilty. And if deepfakes are used to convict you, then some autist will provide proof of this and there'll be an outrage that can not as easily be ignored like Ross Ulbricht.
With similar methods you can prove that they are indeed guilty and not victims to deepfakes. The bigger issue is, as has always been, corruption of the justice system.
The tools however are stacked in our favor. Always.
We just tend to not use them as much as we should and give up ground to the enemy.
"You won't go to prison over (fill in name of techno-babble), because you're innocent until proven guilty."
--Because if there's one thing that a grand-jury loves to do, it's indict a ham-sandwich, and if there's one thing that a state technical witness loves to do, it's keep his sweet gig going.
Example: "bite-mark" "experts" had been putting people in prison for thirty years, and it was all bullshit. Juries are preferentially-selected to the mouth-breathing imbeciles who do whatever they're told 98% of the time.
The very idea that deepfake software is somehow a crucial component of eliminating the deep state is absurd. EITHER patriots are in control because they've already been winning since 2015 without need of said software, or they are not (in which case we're living inside a psyop dream that will end badly when the US goes full commie, and we're rounded up).
And that fingerprint can not only be detected, but be concluded to be different from any real source.
There is no such thing as a flawless CGI, every piece of data is uniquely identifiable and traceable.
You won't go to prison over deepfakes, because you're innocent until proven guilty. And if deepfakes are used to convict you, then some autist will provide proof of this and there'll be an outrage that can not as easily be ignored like Ross Ulbricht.
With similar methods you can prove that they are indeed guilty and not victims to deepfakes. The bigger issue is, as has always been, corruption of the justice system.
The tools however are stacked in our favor. Always.
We just tend to not use them as much as we should and give up ground to the enemy.
"You won't go to prison over (fill in name of techno-babble), because you're innocent until proven guilty."
--Because if there's one thing that a grand-jury loves to do, it's indict a ham-sandwich, and if there's one thing that a state technical witness loves to do, it's keep his sweet gig going.
Example: "bite-mark" "experts" had been putting people in prison for thirty years, and it was all bullshit. Juries are preferentially-selected to the mouth-breathing imbeciles who do whatever they're told 98% of the time.
The very idea that deepfake software is somehow a crucial component of eliminating the deep state is absurd. EITHER patriots are in control because they've already been winning since 2015 without need of said software, or they are not (in which case we're living inside a psyop dream that will end badly when the US goes full commie, and we're rounded up).