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

People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

text.npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 200 posts

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#101

Post by DoreenMichele »

majormajor wrote: post #88
phpisthebest wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally in court you have to provide foundation that the evidence is accurate, for video that normally means the person that recorded the video tells the jury it is a true and accurate representation of what they saw. however the courts have been lack of late allowing police to download social media and YT videos and attest that "the video is a true and accurate representation of what I saw on social media post" bec…

What Musk is doing is sneakier and more deceptive in a different way than that, at an earlier stage. He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. From a linked article from the one posted here, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musk... : > The attorneys for Huang’s family sought to depose Musk regarding recorded statements from 2016 in whic…

Funny, I got the impression he was basically saying "I'm free to say anything at all now and can no longer be held in any way accountable for my own words."

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#102

Post by rcoder »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #4

By people, they mean Elon Musk and Tesla here. No idea of why NPR is so subservient.

...because they're constantly being raked over the coals for being "biased", "liberal", and (now, conveniently thanks to Musk in large part): "state-controlled" perhaps?

If news events depict one side of the political spectrum unfavorably, "balanced" reporting plays directly into the agenda of that side. Truthful reporting of the news shouldn't always mean "all sides have valid arguments," and yet that is what our current media climate demands.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#103

Post by pixl97 »

ridgered4 wrote: post #51
e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like the main point - it's not that court won't accept a deepfake defense, but you would have to prove that it was faked, just like any other convincing evidence

Isn't this backwards in criminal court? Wouldn't the onus be on the prosecution to prove that the video was real? This sounds ridiculous since we lived most of our lives in the video-is-real era that has sort of been coming to an end. I recall the Kyle Rittenhouse trial had an interesting take on this where the defense asked to throw out upscaled video which contrary to every police procedural TV show is a lot like j…

This is going to be interesting in the world of supporting evidence for criminal cases.

For example, lets say someone accused of a violent crime and the prosecutor wants it upgraded to a hate crime. Now lets the accused did not post a life of hate on facebook. But instead there are just a few audio recordings of the accused saying "I hate X people, I want to kill them all" brought to the court by someone else and not found in the accused possession.

As time progresses it will likely become more difficult to prove that the audio is real. Deepfakes of audio are convincingly good these days. Soon the recordings of politicians saying terrible things will be met with a default reply of "it's a deepfake", and it's likely a bunch of them will be.

Future is going to be messy, yo.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#104

Post by greiskul »

splendidHaiku wrote: post #21
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #8

I'm confused how courts will deal with this in the future. We are just entering the age of deep fake voices, convincing ones at least. And there are bound to be plenty of deep fakes that sound like the real person but aren't. Are we now going to be held liable for deepfakes we didn't make? I'm surprised people aren't using this more for divorces and what not. Create a deepfake of your wife and then say "Here's proof…

Everything will be considered fake unless it is proven authentic. How do we prove authentic? Same way we prove that a website we visit is authentic. Every recording made will be signed/hashed and be able to validate of the public key of the recording device (every phone will have a key). White House, News Orgs, etc. all will use cameras with public keys so everyone can validate. As soon as only one pixel or frequency…

You know, contracts are just pieces of paper. They can easily be faked. Yet try going on court and say that a contract with your signature is invalid because it could be fake. Your argument will be rejected, because it doesn't matter if it could be faked, it matters if you are alleging that it was faked.

So the same thing should be the standard for video. Someone shows a video of you doing something. Either say under penalty of perjury, that you did not do that, and then the authenticity of the video can be looked into, or the video will be accepted as authentic. You don't get a preemptive "this could be fake, so lets ignore it".

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#105

Post by anonymouskimmer »

gizmo686 wrote: post #95
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The onus on the prosecution/plaintiff is to prove the defense guilty at whatever standard of evidence is required for the case. Not to prove or disprove any claims about evidence. If the defense makes a claim about any piece of evidence, it is up to them to prove to the court's satisfaction that their claim is truthful.

The burden is on whichever side is attempting to introduce a piece of evidence. From the federal rules of evidence: > (a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-ix/rule-901/ Specific to recordings > An origin…

Those are informative links. Sure. But that doesn't mean they have to prove it wasn't manufactured by martians 50 million years ago just because the other side brought up that possibility just to bring the piece of evidence in to the trial.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#106

Post by roddylindsay »

Deepfake detection will always be imperfect. The only solution the epistemological challenge from deepfakes is to securely authenticate legitimate media.

The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA -- c2pa.org) is an emerging standard to apply cryptographic signatures to media starting in the camera through the editing phase to distribution and consumption. Unfortunately C2PA does not yet have widespread adoption and we are facing a very challenging few years where we will not reliably be able to distinguish real and fake media.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#107

Post by FireBeyond »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #105
gizmo686 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burden is on whichever side is attempting to introduce a piece of evidence. From the federal rules of evidence: > (a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-ix/rule-901/ Specific to recordings > An origin…

Those are informative links. Sure. But that doesn't mean they have to prove it wasn't manufactured by martians 50 million years ago just because the other side brought up that possibility just to bring the piece of evidence in to the trial.

Exactly, the standard is "reasonable doubt", not "any harebrained possibility whatsoever".

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#108

Post by tsimionescu »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #70
ridgered4 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this backwards in criminal court? Wouldn't the onus be on the prosecution to prove that the video was real? This sounds ridiculous since we lived most of our lives in the video-is-real era that has sort of been coming to an end. I recall the Kyle Rittenhouse trial had an interesting take on this where the defense asked to throw out upscaled video which contrary to every police procedural TV show is a lot like j…

The onus on the prosecution/plaintiff is to prove the defense guilty at whatever standard of evidence is required for the case. Not to prove or disprove any claims about evidence. If the defense makes a claim about any piece of evidence, it is up to them to prove to the court's satisfaction that their claim is truthful.

In criminal court at least, evidence is only admitted based on a chain of custody. You're not supposed to enter random videos off YouTube into evidence - you can only enter a piece of video into evidence based on witness testimony about how the video was taken.

As such, the question of deep-fakes should be relatively irrelevant to (criminal) courts. If a witness claims that a particular video was filmed on a particular day in a particular way, that is as much evidence as you need. Whether that witness is lying remains to be proven during the course of the trial.

Things may be different in civil court, where the standards for evidence are more lax I believe.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#109

Post by AnthonyMouse »

majormajor wrote: post #88
phpisthebest wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally in court you have to provide foundation that the evidence is accurate, for video that normally means the person that recorded the video tells the jury it is a true and accurate representation of what they saw. however the courts have been lack of late allowing police to download social media and YT videos and attest that "the video is a true and accurate representation of what I saw on social media post" bec…

What Musk is doing is sneakier and more deceptive in a different way than that, at an earlier stage. He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. From a linked article from the one posted here, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musk... : > The attorneys for Huang’s family sought to depose Musk regarding recorded statements from 2016 in whic…

> He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not.

How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not?

> It's doubtful Musk would be willing to claim this one was fake - there are a lot of witnesses that could be dug up.

But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated?

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#110

Post by FireBeyond »

majormajor wrote: post #88
phpisthebest wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally in court you have to provide foundation that the evidence is accurate, for video that normally means the person that recorded the video tells the jury it is a true and accurate representation of what they saw. however the courts have been lack of late allowing police to download social media and YT videos and attest that "the video is a true and accurate representation of what I saw on social media post" bec…

What Musk is doing is sneakier and more deceptive in a different way than that, at an earlier stage. He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. From a linked article from the one posted here, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musk... : > The attorneys for Huang’s family sought to depose Musk regarding recorded statements from 2016 in whic…

"Is it likely, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that Musk, who has stated multiple times in hundreds of interviews, and company statements, and videos that the company created on websites entirely under their control, would or would not have made a statement materially and structurally similar to this one?"

Also, how good was deep faking in 2016? The video has been around since then. Is Musk's argument that this was a long con to sue Tesla seven years later?

And then you have the concept that all it would take is alternate footage of same statement, B-roll, etc., to add to the "what, were all these deep fakes, too?"

Post reply on HN