Being active on the Hive platform obviously means I have embraced blockchain technology. I think blockchain technology is the future. When it comes to political elections though I believe blockchain is a bad idea. [I've posted about why I believe that](https://holovision.dblog.org/why-u-s-elections-shouldn-t-use-blockchain-technology).

From my username Holovision it should be obvious I also can embrace holographic technology easily. I love holograms. I've even learned to tolerate people calling volumetric and lenticular images "holograms". But there are some applications in which using a hologram is inappropriate.

A recent Reuters (they still exist apparently) [news article](/legal/government/beam-me-up-counselor-are-hologram-witnesses-headed-court-2023-05-16/) was about [hologram witnesses in court](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/beam-me-up-counselor-are-hologram-witnesses-headed-court-2023-05-16/). The article reported about it as a mock trial at the William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia so no real world consequences for a defendant. At least I assume there was no consequence for the defendant since it was a mock trial. The way reuters.com uses pop up ads I wouldn't be surprised if half the story was hidden.

Holographic remote testimony for little children in criminal cases? That's fine. Courts already allow that for regular video. Maybe (big maybe) holographic testimony from expert winesses. If I am accused of a crime and an adult witness wants to show up as a hologram then I would demand the witness appear in person in court to testify.

> The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.

 Source: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause#)

Here's a screen cap of an image from the Reuters article. See how that "hologram" woman testifying in the mock trial has a white light background around her? From an artistic POV someone might describe it as "angelic". As a hypothetical defendant how do I know nobody on the jury is thinking that the witness looks "kinda angelic"? I am not saying the juror is even thinking it consciously. It's possible that subconsciously a juror might associate that white light with "angelic" and give the witness more credibility than if the witness was in person.

<center>![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/holovision/242DLEG8M49qyyy4H99quJtpDqbWwujfy7DDxycXWX847vmLBwfS8Z6cHkF3yYkHz4TFU.png)
Image source: reuters.com</center>

One of the summary points for the article is: 

> Technology could make witness testimony more convenient and accessible

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made it easier for rights holders to accuse internet users of copyright infringement when they operate under fair use. After that and the Amber Heard #MeToo movement the whole making witness testimony more convenient and accessible through holograms really isn't a strong selling point in my view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o5VOQNACIs