People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes • Hacker News Board

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#121

Post by ceejayoz » Mon, May 08, 2023, 5:19 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #109

majormajor wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

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

He doesn't have to remember it for it to be good evidence. If he wants to say "I don't think I would've said that", go for it.

> 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?

The video is perfectly good evidence (and its age and provenance make it pretty reputable). If the defense contests its veracity, that's when you start going to witnesses.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#122

Post by splendidHaiku » Mon, May 08, 2023, 5:20 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #30

splendidHaiku wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 could take a picture of a picture or a recording of a recording and now it is validated.

But then the metadata, e.g. gps coords, time of the recording, etc. of the recorded video will not match with what is displayed. So it would be an obvious fake.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#123

Post by ranger_danger » Mon, May 08, 2023, 5:21 PM UTC

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…

This is a good idea and would help a lot (though not a perfect solution with the whole "picture of a picture" thing).

I wonder if there is any traction in the industry towards making this happen?

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#124

Post by CHY872 » Mon, May 08, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

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…

I think you're reading a little too much into that. I think it's worth comparing it to other forms of evidence. It's incredibly common in civil disputes for one party to give untruthful evidence, sometimes out of malice, sometimes simply due to the human psyche (plenty of evidence of people believing falsehoods after all). Likewise, tampering with physical evidence is far from new - tampered photographs have been going around for over a hundred years, while altered financial records and planted drugs are seen in a court somewhere every day. Practically then, the status quo appears to be that if a prosecutor or litigant has done some due diligence and have a good faith evidence based conclusion that the evidence has not been tampered with (by e.g. having the cameraperson swear under oath that the video is an accurate representation of what they saw), then they will be allowed to present it, and that won't change with the proliferation of deepfake video and audio.

At that point the reliability of the evidence may of course be called into question, as with any evidence or witness. The question mark would be whether it was convincing.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#125

Post by FireBeyond » Mon, May 08, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

roddylindsay wrote: post #106

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 widespr…

I believe Nikon and Canon both (Canon certainly) absolutely have had this available for at least a decade or more, with hardware modules for their cameras that were able to cryptographically sign raw images to attest that that signed data was direct from the sensor. Was a huge concern once digital cameras became sophisticated enough to use in law enforcement.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#126

Post by c7b » Mon, May 08, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

> Suddenly there's no more reality," he said. "And that is really worrisome because I don't know how we reason about the world.

That seems a bit hyperbole. Sure, it's a regression compared to the state of five years ago. But in the bigger picture, it's only been a bit over a decade that recording devices have become omnipresent, maybe 50 years since retail-grade hardware has existed at all. It's not like humanity has no experience in dealing with situations where there's no (reliable) video evidence. For the longest time, hearsay was all we had. And it's not like we couldn't 'reason about the world' back then.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#127

Post by sterlind » Mon, May 08, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

unshavedyak wrote: post #76

bombcar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, just that you can't hand wave away all video evidence by saying "deepfake". It's no more "guilty until proven innocent" than a signed confession means you're guilty unless you prove it fake; that's the whole point of a trial.0

It also depends on the court in question. Ie in my recent criminal Jury experience; if i were to pretend deepfakes were used then it wouldn't be on the prosecution to prove that the video is without a doubt real, but rather that a "reasonable person" would believe that the video is real. Which is quite open to interpretation. For a Jury i think it would come down to how convincingly the defense argued that the video…

I think the reasonable person standard is used for evaluating whether someone's behavior is okay. Like, if you tased someone because they were suspicious, the question would be whether a reasonable person would conclude they were suspicious based on what they did.

I think you're thinking of reasonable doubt?

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#128

Post by phs » Mon, May 08, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

My partner and I now half-jokingly refer to all legitimate pictures, footage, etc. as "legacy".

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#129

Post by cptskippy » Mon, May 08, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

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…

In this case it's relatively easy to prove the legitimacy of the video. It was published by a real news organization 6 years ago, is a video of an interview conducted by two well known and respected reporters (Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg), was filmed in front of a live audience (additional witnesses), and it's being hosted on a 3rd party's website for 6 years. There should be piles of evidence that the video is real.

There should be higher degree of burden on the defense than claiming "fake news" and waving your hand.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#130

Post by HWR_14 » Mon, May 08, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

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…

The burden overall is with the prosecution. Any given piece of evidence can be weighed independently by the jury. For instance, the prosecutor can call 100 eye witnesses and isn't required to prove each is correct beyond the shadow of a doubt. The defense can argue it's a conspiracy, but they will need to supply some evidence, not just assert it and say "you couldn't prove 100 people didn't conspire"