In a lawyers view, and a judge's view, some skilled expert "hackers" can, and its called hacking. (so i guess we're all hackers)
I once discussed these things with a (knowledgeable) lawyer. He explained you can just present almost anhthing in a court case, and when it isn't refuted, well then it's valid.
In a case my lawyer (same one) presented a printed out email. Other party did not claim it was false, so it's suddenly just as valid as a registered letter. (it was a genuine email).
In another unrelated case, the other party suddenly introduced a forged picture. If I hadn't been there at that moment (I wasn't supposed to actually), then suddenly it would have been proof.
Court cases are not about truth, and not about justice. They are about convincing the judge.
I'm currently the originator and lead on a project that will have huge impact on our bottom line. The team is mostly junior people, so when I presented the plan the response I got wasn't "I didn't think we could do that", it was "I didn't even know that that is a thing".
There used to be a joke about Rumsfeld's "known unknowns" vs. "unknown unknowns", but it's so true. And to the vast majority of people in the world the question isn't "how" to change a timestamp, it's understanding that a timestamp can even be changed.
I also however don’t believe that deepfaked porn is actually harmful. People are already imagining people naked, and it’s been easy to photoshop a nude for 15 years. A talented artist was needed 200 years ago. Allowing this (admittedly rude and disrespectful) act to be done with less skill changes very little.
Worse, there isn't an attitude of default skepticism in many areas/cultures. If a person is suspected of violating the moral code the priority will be punishment and reinforcing that such behavior isn't acceptable. Whether or not the specific person actually did the specific act is a secondary concern.
It's just going to increase the number of people who will be harmed or killed.