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

141–150 of 200 posts

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#141

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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…

Some image enhancement is scientifically valid. Stacking frames could make a blurry license plate legible. I don't want to live in a world where that is inadmissible.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#144

Post by ceejayoz »

WalterBright wrote: post #136
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…

I'm surprised that old emails count as evidence. An email file is just text - text that anyone can write/edit/fake.

Plenty of evidence accepted in court can be faked. A written ransom note might be faked. A receipt for a gun could be faked.

How believable the emails are will vary. Do you still have the headers? Is there a valid DKIM signature in those headers? Can you bring the people CCed on the email as witnesses? etc.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#145

Post by sebzim4500 »

Ekaros wrote: post #20

About Musk case, couldn't you simply gather enough people who were present and ask if this recording matches their recollection of what he said on that day? Just like most witness testimonies work.

The recording was from 7 years ago, best case a few people remember roughly what was said. No one will remember the exact wording.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#147

Post by sidewndr46 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #110
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…

"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…

How would you establish this video has been around since 2016? I could easily upload the same video and put a caption under it of "filmed shortly after the birth of Elon Musk" on it.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#148

Post by [deleted] »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #113
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#149

Post by anonymouskimmer »

WalterBright wrote: post #136
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…

I'm surprised that old emails count as evidence. An email file is just text - text that anyone can write/edit/fake.

I don't know what authentication information is stored in an email header that would be difficult to fake. But if the email is stored on a third party's server, the chain of custody and time of creation can be independently documented.

For an old email, it would be up to the opposing counsel to argue that the person who made it made it for the purpose of fabricating evidence however many years ago.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#150

Post by sidewndr46 »

RecycledEle wrote: post #15

I have had several of my dash cam videos thrown out because "judges" thought they were faked. Even when I uploaded the video to YouTube within 24 hours of the wreck the "judge" said I had years to fake it.

I'm guessing these were not criminal trials however?
Post reply on HN