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

151–160 of 200 posts

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#151

Post by unshavedyak »

sterlind wrote: post #127
unshavedyak wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nope, i'm thinking about "reasonable person". I was just in the case (a few weeks ago) so this is quite fresh in my mind.

For additional context, the criminal case i was part of the Jury for was handed a book of definitions for the given case. Things like Assault had qualifiers of Self Defense and Stand Your Ground. Each of these little nuance-y definitions included very implicit definitions of say, the force you use in response to assault for self defense or stand your ground. This responsive force was instructed to be judged against something like "Force that a reasonable person would not believe to be in excess based on the attack".

Ie "reasonable" was only able to be decided by a hypothetical "reasonable person". Whether something is reasonable or not was only applicable in the context of the person who is deciding if it's reasonable, also themselves being a reasonable person.

Just about every definition page had an explanation quite similar to this. I think due to the fact that human definitions are very difficult to define. Did you hit them too hard? Well we don't have pounds per square inch of your delivery, or w/e concrete definition could use, so the legal definitions were bounded by this hypothetical "reasonable person".

It was interesting.

edit: I should add, in case it's not clear, that we the Jury were instructed by the judge on the legal definitions. That was the book. We were to view the case through the lens of these legal definitions with the evidence presented. What specifically we were deciding was very important and meticulously managed by the Judge.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#152

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ceejayoz wrote: post #140
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He doesn't have to remember it for it to be good evidence. He doesn't have to remember it for it to be bad evidence either. > If he wants to say "I don't think I would've said that", go for it. But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? > 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 goi…

> But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. (He doesn't. He knows it's a genuine video.) Again, a vague assertion that "sometimes people make deepfakes about me" doesn't cut it. > The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't. The defense is highly un…

> He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake.

Why? What if he thinks it could be fake, and doesn't know? Why should that reduce the other party's burden?

> The defense is highly unlikely to make the claim that a seven year old video on a prominent channel with top industry reporters didn't happen.

But it's not the defense claiming that it didn't happen, it's the plaintiff claiming that it did. They should have to prove their claims.

And sometimes they'll be able to.

> Plenty of pieces of evidence get entered into the court's records without being contested.

They don't get contested when the defense doesn't want to aggravate the judge by demanding proof of something they know the other party has, even if they have a right to. That's a different question than whether the other party should have the burden of proof in the cases where they might not be able to meet it.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#153

Post by sidewndr46 »

mandmandam wrote: post #74
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you appeal and get expert testimony to verify the videos?

The way I've seen this work is that the Judge throws that in with 17 other bullshit arguments. And unless you can take a thorough and comprehensive swipe at all eighteen, which takes about 160 pages of filings, then your odds of even being heard on appeal are small. Something like 90% of appeals that do get heard lose anyway. This all costs a lot of money when lawyers cost $150 - $700 per hour. Expert testimony costs…

Could you provide a reference to proceedings that went this way, where the evidence was rejected and the case ultimately dropped as a result?

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#154

Post by bombcar »

unshavedyak wrote: post #151
sterlind wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nope, i'm thinking about "reasonable person". I was just in the case (a few weeks ago) so this is quite fresh in my mind. For additional context, the criminal case i was part of the Jury for was handed a book of definitions for the given case. Things like Assault had qualifiers of Self Defense and Stand Your Ground. Each of these little nuance-y definitions included very implicit definitions of say, the force you use…

It sounds like you're agreeing; the "reasonable person" definition comes into play in self-defense, threats, etc.

The "reasonable doubt" comes into play on the facts.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#155

Post by ceejayoz »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #152
ceejayoz wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. (He doesn't. He knows it's a genuine video.) Again, a vague assertion that "sometimes people make deepfakes about me" doesn't cut it. > The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't. The defense is highly un…

> He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. Why? What if he thinks it could be fake, and doesn't know? Why should that reduce the other party's burden? > The defense is highly unlikely to make the claim that a seven year old video on a prominent channel with top industry reporters didn't happen. But it's not the defense claiming that it didn't happen, it's the plaintiff claiming…

> What if he thinks it could be fake, and doesn't know?

He will be asked to justify that belief, and that justification will be weighed against the provenance of the video. That he's not saying that is telling; claiming the video is faked would likely hurt his credibility given the number of times he's provably made statements of this kind.

> They should have to prove their claims.

They have submitted it as evidence. The jury weighs if it's credible. If Musk chooses not to rebut/contest it, that's on him, not the plaintiff.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#156

Post by FireBeyond »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #147
FireBeyond wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

And could you also fake news articles referencing it all the way back to then?

Or the Internet Archive?

At some point you recognize that "reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "insurmountable evidence to disprove even the worse conspiracy theorist/asshole wrong".

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#157

Post by mensetmanusman »

konschubert wrote: post #72
mensetmanusman wrote: post #64

This is fascinating, within a few years or so there will be no way to determine whether a video was deep faked or not with 100% accuracy.

This had been true forever for documents and letters and other kinds of evidence. Courts can deal with uncertainty

Sure, but it’s going to be trippy for the jury.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#158

Post by falcolas »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #139
falcolas wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On topic though, this doesn't make "It could be fake," a reasonable defense. Sure, the surface area will get larger, but we have that problem across all digital media at this moment. Deepfakes are no longer unique. The courts will have to deal with it one way or another, and right now expert witnesses is the tool they have, and the tool defendants will need to use.

> On topic though, this doesn't make "It could be fake," a reasonable defense. Why not? If you go into court claiming you have a contract with someone but you have nothing notarized or even signed, you're the one who has to provide evidence of your claim. A video is no longer sufficient to do that because any plaintiff or internet troll now has the ability to convincingly fabricate one. It's no more proof of anything…

The difference is the difference between "it may be fake" and "it is fake". "May" being the key word that makes it a meaningless observation instead of a defense. If someone wants to defend themselves against video evidence, they need to say that it's fake, and create reasonable doubt about its veracity. You don't do that with "maybe" or "could be".

> Why should it be the defendants who have to pay for the expert instead of the plaintiffs?

TL;DR: that's how our legal system works in the US, for better or worse.

EDIT: You probably don't have to attack the video as a deepfake directly, either. "That's not me, I wasn't at X, I was at Y, and here are receipts and witnesses" are highly likely to work too. Basically, an alibi.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#159

Post by ceejayoz »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #147
FireBeyond wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> I could easily upload the same video and put a caption under it of "filmed shortly after the birth of Elon Musk" on it.

Except it's on YouTube, not a website under their control, which means you now need to argue - with convincing evidence - that YouTube is in on a conspiracy to defraud the court to get at Musk.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#160

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ceejayoz wrote: post #155
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. Why? What if he thinks it could be fake, and doesn't know? Why should that reduce the other party's burden? > The defense is highly unlikely to make the claim that a seven year old video on a prominent channel with top industry reporters didn't happen. But it's not the defense claiming that it didn't happen, it's the plaintiff claiming…

> What if he thinks it could be fake, and doesn't know? He will be asked to justify that belief, and that justification will be weighed against the provenance of the video. That he's not saying that is telling; claiming the video is faked would likely hurt his credibility given the number of times he's provably made statements of this kind. > They should have to prove their claims. They have submitted it as evidence.…

> He will be asked to justify that belief

Why? His lawyers could provide the same justification: Convincing deepfakes are easily produced at low cost by adversarial plaintiffs and internet trolls.

> That he's not saying that is telling

People are imperfect and if you misspeak under oath there are consequences. Testifying at all subjects you to cross-examination, which is time consuming and subjects you to lawyer tricks by the other party. Not wanting to do it is the default.

> They have submitted it as evidence. The jury weighs if it's credible.

First the judge decides if it's even admissible. There are some forms of evidence so weak that they only serve to prejudice the jury, and unauthenticated video is pretty much there now.

Demanding that the introducing party authenticate it should be table stakes at this point.

Post reply on HN