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

41–50 of 200 posts

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#41

Post by lozenge »

d23 wrote: post #2

Any attorneys here that can discuss the nuances involved in knowingly lying to the court, which I believe carries penalties for the attorney? And why / whether that would or wouldn’t apply here?

Musk's lawyers didn't specifically claim that the videos actually are deepfakes. They refused to say either way.

> Tesla could not admit or deny the authenticity of video and audio recordings purportedly containing statements by Mr. Musk

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/judge-slams-tesl...

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#42

Post by TeMPOraL »

infinitifall wrote: post #28
izzydata wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Videos are easy enough to spot as fakes for now, but I've heard really convincing AI audio fakes. Audio only recordings might not be usable as evidence without additional confirmation of authenticity.

What would "additional confirmation" look like? Are audio/video recordings I take with my phone going to be useless in a decade because deepfakes are virtually indistinguishable and there is no "additional confirmation"?

That is a good question, because there are two trends at play here. On the one hand, you have ever improving ability to create deepfake images, videos or audio recordings. On the other hand, AI-based retouching of photos and videos is now pretty much standard on mobile, some of it done by default and hidden from you in software. It wouldn't surprise me if the same was case with voice too.

Point being, it'll take more than just looking at the source image/video/audio for signs of AI manipulation, because soon enough, all recordings will be AI-manipulated before even hitting persistent storage.

In other words: everything will be deepfake by default, and the issue will turn into telling which deepfakes were done to lie about substantial aspects of reality pertinent to the case, and which ones were made to enhance some non-relevant qualities (aesthetics, compressibility, etc.).

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#43

Post by bombcar »

moffkalast wrote: post #33
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

Doesn't this also mean that a deepfake presented as evidence of crime makes you guilty until proven innocent?

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

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#44

Post by SoftTalker »

canadianwriter wrote: post #12

When courts still use lie detector tests and first person accounts as evidence (both of which have been proven to be close to useless), this will take a while for an actual solution to come by.

Lie detector tests are not admissible in court. They are an investigative tool.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#45

Post by dragonwriter »

riskneutral wrote: post #9
d23 wrote: post #2

Any attorneys here that can discuss the nuances involved in knowingly lying to the court, which I believe carries penalties for the attorney? And why / whether that would or wouldn’t apply here?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not a thing. Lying to the court is a routine part of litigation, and there is no penalty or sanction for it - especially not against the lawyers themselves.

> I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not a thing. Lying to the court is a routine part of litigation,

No, its not.

> and there is no penalty or sanction for it

Yes, there is.

> - especially not against the lawyers themselves.

There is a penalty especially against the lawyers. Heck, lawyers have been suspended from practice for lying to courts outside of their capacity as lawyers.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#46

Post by crdrost »

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…

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 is no paper trail of “my client maintained a very consistent messaging that this was not fully autonomous driving and you need to always be vigilant... this isolated clip is so strange that we need to seriously entertain the idea that it was deepfaked.” That sort of stuff.

Regarding the faithful wife accused of cheating, I mean, there are lots of valid ways to investigate. First questions are “where did this video come from, where do you believe it was filmed, why do you believe it is your wife rather than someone who happens to look a lot like her,” etc. ... Normally a PI would be claiming “I followed her to so-and-so motel, I took this video legally from outside” and even then you might get objections from a decent divorce lawyer, “this is a two-party consent state and my client didn't consent, this is unlawful surveillance,” yadda yadda yadda. But for a deepfake you have all those objections and more.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#47

Post by anonymouskimmer »

pengaru wrote: post #29

It's the Fake News defense all over again, Musk and Trump would make good cellmates.

"I only want to be seen as great, I can't handle criticism or ridicule."

There are plenty of billionaires who stay far more out of the limelight than either of these two.

You want praise? You have to accept scorn.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#48

Post by pmarreck »

Couldn't the original copy of a video be sha256-hashed by, say, the recording equipment firmware itself, and then possibly time/date-proofed somehow (such as on, sigh, a blockchain)?

Is there a need for a service like this? (I've been looking for something interesting to build.)

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#49

Post by ceejayoz »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #34
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

But then the defense has to pay the cost of hiring an expert to prove it's not authentic. It's really hard to predict where the technology is headed with regards to both generating and proving the non-authenticity of deepfakes, but it is concerning that this could open up people without money to pay for defense to be ruined by people with money to pay for deepfakes.

> But then the defense has to pay the cost of hiring an expert to prove it's not authentic.

The defense's first step is to say "that particular video is a deep fake", under penalty of perjury.

Musk's "well it could be" doesn't cut it.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#50

Post by indymike »

e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #14
xur17 wrote: post #3

I thought this part was particularly interesting: > "Their position is that because Mr. Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune," she wrote. "In other words, Mr. Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what t…

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

Actually, a witness who can vouch that the video depicts what they saw of a live event.
Post reply on HN