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

AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

lawfaremedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 171 posts

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#151

Post by WalterBright »

kragen wrote: post #147
WalterBright wrote: post #142

Add to that AI generated photographs and video. BTW, I've always wondered about the validity of email evidence. Email is text on a computer. You can edit it to say whatever you want.

You may be interested the decision in the COPA vs. Wright case https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/copa-v-wright/ where Craig Wright falsely claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto and forged many kinds of text on computers in order to support his baseless claims, including emails. The COPA's experts, among others, found lots of cases where he slipped up, and the court's decision and its appendix go into a great deal of detail…

Thank you. Interesting! His mistake was faking the destination address, which did not exist at the time of the timestamp.

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#152

Post by pixl97 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #90
Majromax wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could make plausible sounding recordings that did not reflect reality by, for example, cutting recordings up with freeware like Audacity, Cutting up what recordings, exactly? If you're mixing-and-matching, you need a pretty broad corpus of source material with fairly consistent recording quality (background noise, etc), and even still you're limited to reproducing words that are already present. You can't cut-and…

I'm giving limited examples, not a conclusive list of how audio could be manipulated. I understand that there are circumstances where my examples don't work. My broader point is that audio evidence has never been perfect, just like every other medium that evidence can exist in. Generative audio technology is not the first time that audio has been corruptible as evidence, and any lawyer who believed otherwise was naiv…

When I was younger I never had a solicited call on my landline. Simply put any place that would have called to try and sell me something would have been long distance and it wasn't worth the cost. Back then I always answered the phone because it was going to be something important.

Then the cost of long distance started to drop to zero and the commercial calls started coming in. After it was zero, the outright illegal scams showed up. Now, probably one out of every fifty calls to me is an actual legitimate call. My phone goes to automatic voicemail if you're not already in my contacts.

Were talking about both quantitative changes and qualitative changes. Things like this can have large impacts on society.

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#153

Post by pixl97 »

nostrademons wrote: post #62
bilbo0s wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know man? We're already at a place where most people don't care what other people think of them. Issue is, as long as the government has the big guns, what the government thinks of you will still matter in a major way. In such an environment, most people are going to choose to have some kind of way to prove to the government what they did and what they didn't do. Not because they care what other people think…

Government is based on the threat of the use of force, not the actual use of force. If you're a government that is regularly using force against a significant proportion of your citizens, you have problems, and probably will not remain the government for long. I suspect that we're saying the same thing but with reversed causality. Both of us agree that non-deterministic enforcement breaks down the incentives needed f…

> If you're a government that is regularly using force against a significant proportion of your citizens

Yea. Russia is going to collapse any day now........... um, I'm still waiting.

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#154

Post by pixl97 »

tgv wrote: post #23

I'll say it again, even though it is rather unpopular here: there has never been a need to develop these tools, nor one to make them easy to deploy, nor one to make them easy to use. Yet all this has happened, and now it may occur that someone is acquitted because AI generated media is so good, the evidence might be artificial. If that happens, and the suspect commits another crime, it's on the conscience of the peop…

>The tools aren't perfect yet, so it's not too late to stop

This is some serious level of cope for HN.

Simply put, it's not going to happen.

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#155

Post by qingcharles »

siva7 wrote: post #125
qingcharles wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a lawyer who was convicted on one of those. The detectives had the mic + transmitter taped to his groin so it would get through a pat down. Then the undercover just spoke both sides of the conversation (the defendant's side was whispered and muffled). Someone testified it sounded like the defendant. Conviction was overturned on appeal on a simpler issue unrelated to the evidence. In fact, I remember a drug dea…

So what happened to him?

The first one got a get-out-of-jail-free card. The second one got away because the drug dealer didn't want to do anything to him while he had a mic + transmitter attached. If anything happened to him later, I wasn't privy to that..!

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#157

Post by kragen »

WalterBright wrote: post #151
kragen wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be interested the decision in the COPA vs. Wright case https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/copa-v-wright/ where Craig Wright falsely claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto and forged many kinds of text on computers in order to support his baseless claims, including emails. The COPA's experts, among others, found lots of cases where he slipped up, and the court's decision and its appendix go into a great deal of detail…

Thank you. Interesting! His mistake was faking the destination address, which did not exist at the time of the timestamp.

In one case! He made lots of different mistakes.

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#158

Post by pixl97 »

bluGill wrote: post #123
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cameras are an IoT device. The S is for security. What good is having the company certify something that isn't true? It seems like it would just be a mechanism to lend undeserved credibility to something that still isn't trustworthy.

Here the camera manufacture is asserting under oath that they (not their competitors) are secure. Just because IoT is almost always insecure doesn't mean it 100% is, being the exception can allow you to charge a premium price at times - but you better really be the exception.

This isn't how security works. Devices like IoT stay in the field for decades quite often, and generally without updates (or if they do have updates, the updater itself is a security risk).

Re: AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court

#159

Post by fhd2 »

vasco wrote: post #120
fhd2 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm not arguing "good riddance". I just optimistically think we'll manage. I wouldn't want to miss any of the things you listed, actually. I'd also prefer evidence tampering to be impossible or at least very difficult. But that's not a call I can make. All I can decide about things out of my control, is how I think about it. And here I'm carefully optimistic.

But your argument for why we can live without audio or video evidence was that we lived like that before. All I'm saying is that's not a great argument. You can probably come up with other arguments and they might be perfectly valid.

Fair point. I didn't mean it too sound that dismissive. I'd rather not live without electricity, but if something was happening that eliminated electricity, I'd probably say "we did it before, we can do it again", too. And yeah, I'd probably say it in that case, not post to HN, for technical reasons.
Post reply on HN