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

111–120 of 200 posts

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#111

Post by ranger_danger »

falcolas wrote: post #61
pcthrowaway wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then the defense has to pay the cost of hiring an expert to prove it's not authentic. It's really hard to predict where the technology is headed with regards to both generating and proving the non-authenticity of deepfakes, but it is concerning that this could open up people without money to pay for defense to be ruined by people with money to pay for deepfakes.

Hiring expert witnesses is what lawyers do when it comes to anything remotely specialized. Deepfakes are nothing new in this regards.

Yes but people without access to good enough lawyers are going to get the short end of the stick as always, and get framed for something they didn't do. The number of innocent people in jail could skyrocket.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#112

Post by AnthonyMouse »

falcolas wrote: post #61
pcthrowaway wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then the defense has to pay the cost of hiring an expert to prove it's not authentic. It's really hard to predict where the technology is headed with regards to both generating and proving the non-authenticity of deepfakes, but it is concerning that this could open up people without money to pay for defense to be ruined by people with money to pay for deepfakes.

Hiring expert witnesses is what lawyers do when it comes to anything remotely specialized. Deepfakes are nothing new in this regards.

The new thing is that fakes that could convince an ordinary person that they're real were in the realm of state intelligence agencies, and now they're in the realm of anyone with a computer. Which causes the probability that a given video is fake to go from negligible to significant.

It's also not clear if experts always can tell if something is a fake or not, if it was created by an algorithm which is less than a year old or doesn't happen to have a lot of the artifacts that these algorithms sometimes introduce.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#113

Post by oatmeal1 »

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…

It sounds like the defense is trying to disqualify any video of Musk being used at trial on the basis it may be fake.

If any evidence was automatically disqualified on the basis that it merely could be fake, there could never be any successful prosecution.

The defense is still welcome, of course, to make an argument and present evidence that any video or other evidence provided by the prosecution is fake.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#114

Post by csydas »

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 already done, at least with many modern courts.

Substantiating your evidence has to happen via a pretty specific process, and there is an entire process for entering stuff into evidence with rules regarding chain of custody, validation, etc.

When it comes to evidence, it's not a specific claim against anyone, it's an item that is being introduced to support a claim. That should be validated and checked before it even gets to the court room. If either counsel believes it to be fraudulent, they need to review it and make the claim.

From the article, this was not really the case; instead, a video of a conference with many attendees and participants showed Musk making the claim in question.[0] Tesla's (or Musk's? Not sure) lawyers made a very weak statement:

"[Musk], like many public figures, is the subject of many ‘deepfake’ videos and audio recordings that purport to show him saying and doing things he never actually said or did,” Tesla said"

This is not really an argument towards anything about the video; it doesn't outright say it's a deepfake (likely because it's not), it doesn't provide any evidence to a claim that the video in question is a deepfake, it does nothing to establish who would have produced this deepfake, it doesn't question the YouTube channel owners, Recode, on if they are ready to stand by their statement, etc.

In this instance, the lawyers defending Tesla/Musk are trying to muddy the waters; they aren't bold enough to say Recode made a deepfake, they aren't trying hard to position that the video _is_ a deepfake, they're just trying to sow doubt into the minds of the court about whether to consider normal evidence like recordings or screenshots as valid given that Musk is a public figure. (not sure if there's a jury, but if there is, they want to confuse the jury also)

The judge was right in my opinion to slap the defense counsel on this, as it's transparent and pithy. It was a bad-faith statement to make for a legal team in my opinion as they weren't trying to _say it was a fake_, they just wanted to sow doubt without any proof.

It's even a bit hopeful in my opinion as to me it says the court is holding Musk and the businesses he associates with accountable for Musk's actions and statements; Musk has tried this before when he "joked" about buying Twitter and the courts didn't take on any of the arguments they put up. As I see it, it's another instance of Musk and counsel representing his interests trying desperately to escape culpability.

0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsixsRI-Sz4&t=4765s

Edit: Wrong link on first version. I was trying to see if any other channels had coverage of the Code Conference 2016, but looks like it's just Recode.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#115

Post by cowpig »

qingcharles wrote: post #90

Essentially all evidence in court is assumed to be inadmissible (potentially fake) until a "foundation" is laid by the party who wishes to use it as an exhibit at trial. I can't just turn up with a random photo or video and ask the court to accept it. Generally this is done by having the person that created the media swear under oath. In the case of a photograph you would have the photographer on the stand and ask th…

Please, go on :)

What is the process like in practice, and what are its weaknesses? How do you think this process will have to change to account for the ease of fabricating digital evidence?

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#116

Post by ranger_danger »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #55
moffkalast wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this also mean that a deepfake presented as evidence of crime makes you guilty until proven innocent?

there is no evidence that makes you guilty, it requires a judge or jury to find you so, versus the default state of innocence

Yes, but people willing to lie are going to get away with framing others even easier than before, especially if the defendant has bad/no lawyers.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#117

Post by gizmo686 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #107
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The standard for admitting evidence is far below reasonable doubt, even in a criminal case. Generally speaking, all you need is someone to get on the stand and say (under oath), "yes, that video is an accurate copy of the video I took".

If you have that (absent other possible evidentuary concerns), it is up to the trier of fact (e.g. jury) to determine if how much they believe the evidence.

The problem here is the prosecution cannot meet even that low bar, and instead is relying on the various exceptions to the requirement.

Rule 902 lists evidence that is "self authenticating", and videos are not on it.

https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-ix/rule-902/

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#118

Post by anoonmoose »

pixl97 wrote: post #103
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…

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…

The example you described is handled by our current system. (For the moment, let's put aside whether or not the system always works as intended). Evidence isn't just "brought to court by someone else". It doesn't just appear. Someone needs to be saying "this is the accused saying this"- during the discovery process before the trial the defense will have an opportunity to refute that claim. If it's another witness, they will be cross-examined by the defense and the jury will need to decide if the testimony is credible or not. If they lie, they will have committed perjury, and all of what I just said is true (roughly, I'm not a lawyer) whether you use AI or a good voice actor.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#119

Post by ranger_danger »

ianferrel wrote: post #19
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…

This isn't a new problem with video, but a new twist on an old problem: manufactured evidence. One way that courts deal with it is enhanced scrutiny on disputed evidence. Like, if you show up to a court with a document that you claimed someone signed, and they claim they didn't sign it, then the court can keep digging until they figure out who is lying. They can look for witnesses. They can subpoena records from inte…

> if the full force the court's scrutiny is turned on them

good luck doing that without severely deep pockets

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#120

Post by nh23423fefe »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #31
noughtme wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t seem unreasonable. Isn’t this already the case for politicians in the US? (Not related to deepfakes, just any public statement). Wouldn’t any legal matters defer to written contracts and TOS?

Indeed. Given the current state of affairs, I think if anyone were to be a victim of a deepfake smear campaing, Musk is easily in top 10 of the most likely candidates.

making up numbers isn't persuasive.
Post reply on HN