Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

lawfaremedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 171 posts

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#51

Post by bluGill »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #36
bluGill wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps camera manufactures will start putting traces in. Anyone who makes surveillance systems (like stores use) should put some end to end things in so they can say "this camera took that recording and we can see that it wasn't tampered with by...". (if anyone works for a surveillance company please run with this!) With encryption we can verify a lot of things, but it sets the bar higher than someone took a pict…

Cryptography doesn't really fix it. There are a zillion camera makers and all it takes is one of them to have poor security and leak the keys. Then the forger uses any of the cameras with extractable keys to sign their forgery. Or they just point a camera at a high resolution playback of a forged video. This also assumes you can trust all the camera makers, because by doing this you're implicitly giving them each aut…

The point is the camera maker certifies in court under perjury penalty that their cameras are not compromised and that is their image. "Other camera systems are compromised, but ours is not...".

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#54

Post by bilbo0s »

nostrademons wrote: post #34
Lammy wrote: post #21

In the future this stuff will get so good that the public will beg to be surveilled at all times because it will be the only way to prove what you didn't do. You will learn to love Total Information Awareness. Consent status: manufactured :)

It could easily go the other way, where the public doesn't care what people think they did or didn't do and just does whatever they want, because they don't respect the state and believe the social contract has been broken. "Fuck justice, talk to my AR-15." There's ample evidence that this is already happening, eg. recent headlines about kids being radicalized at increasingly younger ages, groups like No Lives Matter…

I don't know man?

We're already at a place where most people don't care what other people think of them.

Issue is, as long as the government has the big guns, what the government thinks of you will still matter in a major way.

In such an environment, most people are going to choose to have some kind of way to prove to the government what they did and what they didn't do. Not because they care what other people think as you're implying, but rather because they very much care that the government not get the wrong idea about them. Because the government getting the wrong idea about you can be fatal.

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#55

Post by alamortsubite »

gortok wrote: post #52

What shocks (and irritates!) me is that Charles Schwab keeps wanting me to set up voice ID. Why would I want to set up a voice ID for something that is now trivially spoofed?

When was the last time you encountered this? I remember getting nags up until around the end of last year, but not lately. I like to think they dropped the program because I expressed concerns about it to so many reps, but more likely I've just been dialing in on a different number.

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#56

Post by [deleted] »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #35
qwertox wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do want a computer which talks to me like a person, with that agility. I am used to listening to voice. I am tired of reading so much stuff which could well be spoken to me. Like this comment here, which you now need to read. It's only very recently that living beings on this world have learned to read and write, it's not normal. It's normal to communicate through sound.

What an incredible line to end on. “It’s not normal to read/write”.

[deleted]

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#57

Post by _DeadFred_ »

treetalker wrote: post #15

I question the wisdom of setting the judge up as a superjury / gatekeeper for this kind of situation. This seems like a reliability / weight of the evidence scenario, not a reliability / qualification of the witness scenario (as with an expert witness). Why would the judge be better qualified to determine whether the voice was authentic, as opposed to the witness? And why should the judge effectively determine the wi…

You mean like expert witness polygraphers that were treated as fact by the courts for years and still used to re-incarcerate people on parole/probation?

Or gun matching (ballistics) that are no longer considered conclusive but subjective? https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2023/10a22.pdf

Hair and Fiber expert analysis that was wrong? https://innocenceproject.org/fbi-agents-gave-erroneous-testi...

Or do you mean bite mark analysis that was again wrong?

Many of these forensic methods were used for decades and presented/treated as conclusive evidence before being challenged leading to wrongful convictions. But yes, let's have 'certified' voice experts whose living is based on being hired by the government and giving testimony to convict people. Surely this time it will be altruistic and scientific.

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#58

Post by qwertox »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #35
qwertox wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do want a computer which talks to me like a person, with that agility. I am used to listening to voice. I am tired of reading so much stuff which could well be spoken to me. Like this comment here, which you now need to read. It's only very recently that living beings on this world have learned to read and write, it's not normal. It's normal to communicate through sound.

What an incredible line to end on. “It’s not normal to read/write”.

I'm not aware of any other species which is capable of reading and writing. But many can certainly hear and make sounds.

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#59

Post by _DeadFred_ »

thereddaikon wrote: post #22
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The article didn't touch on this aspect, but we're now at the point where even authentic recordings could be plausibly denied and claimed to be fake. So the entire usage of recordings as evidence will suffer a hit. We may essentially be knocked back to an 18th century level of reliance on eyewitness testimony. One wonders what the consequences for justice will be.

There's already a process for this, its called chain of custody. If you cant prove the evidence has a solid chain of custody then it was potentially tampered with and isn't reliable.

This is such BS. The government is ALWAYS deferred to when the chain of custody is broken because 'good faith' is applied. As long as 'good faith' is rountely dispensed 'chain of custody' is nothing but propaganda for the justice system not an actual tool used for justice.

As long as chain of custody ca be discarded because 'good faith' whenever it becomes inconvenient it is not a real thing.

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#60

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bluGill wrote: post #51
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptography doesn't really fix it. There are a zillion camera makers and all it takes is one of them to have poor security and leak the keys. Then the forger uses any of the cameras with extractable keys to sign their forgery. Or they just point a camera at a high resolution playback of a forged video. This also assumes you can trust all the camera makers, because by doing this you're implicitly giving them each aut…

The point is the camera maker certifies in court under perjury penalty that their cameras are not compromised and that is their image. "Other camera systems are compromised, but ours is not...".

Cameras are an IoT device. The S is for security. What good is having the company certify something that isn't true?

It seems like it would just be a mechanism to lend undeserved credibility to something that still isn't trustworthy.

Post reply on HN