181–190 of 200 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
So the way the lawyers are approaching this evidence is their usual cavalier approach to truth. They are not attempting to establish “my client never said that,” but just trying to poke holes, “this video of my client saying that is not sufficient proof that my client said that.” There is for example no statement under oath from Elon, “that video was a fake, that absolutely never happened.” Even without that, there i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
perjury isn't looked to kindly on in the courts.
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…
It's not a new problem. There was an HN article I was reading about someone facing police audio tape evidence and their defence lawyer said it must have been edited to make their client look guilty. The prosecution proved the recording was continuous and not edited from the pattern of mains hum noise on the tape. There'll probably be some clever technical methods to differentiate deep fakes from original recording al…
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…
> 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 my wife was cheating" No fault divorce makes it kind of pointless to use in divorces.
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…
It is 100% not an issue. The human eye and ears can’t tell if some video or audio is fake, but you cannot hide from the machine. Deep technical analysis will easily reveal something is manufactured, as easily as it can tell an image is photoshopped. And God help you if they discover you manufactured evidence. Manufacturing evidence raises the stakes considerably. It makes any crime instantly more heinous, proves you…
This is a ridiculous comment
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…
Not to mention one could generate an overwhelming amount of fake video evidence, making it virtually impossible to prove all of it is fake.
Apart from the video, wouldn't there have been lots of witnesses who where at the conference in person and saw him make that statement?
Even apart from the "burden of proof" debate, it seems kinda dumb to try and set this precedent in a case where the prosecution could actually provide proof of the video being genuine relatively easily.
(Unless you want to assume that Musk was playing 8D chess here and intentionally introducing the "everything is fake unless proven otherwise" defense in one of the rare situations where it could actually be disproven, to make it appear less devastating to the judge than it actually is. If that was the plan, the judge wasn't having it though.)