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

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#51

Post by ridgered4 »

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

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 just fabricating data. With the amount of post processing and AI a cell phone camera does these days you could argue everything they pump out is doctored and fake by default because it kind of is. And most video is stored with lossy algorithms even without the post processing.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#52

Post by svachalek »

Raidion wrote: post #39
cma wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could take a picture of a picture or a recording of a recording and now it is validated.

But it wouldn't be validated with the original key, so people could know it could have been tampered with.

If the key is just the recording device, why not? Play a fake on some other device and record with your own.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#53

Post by bombcar »

johndhi wrote: post #24
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 a lawyer. Lol at the other answers. It definitely carries penalties for the attorney. Each US state has passed 'rules of professional conduct' that govern rules that apply to barred attorneys. Lying to a tribunal, or lying to your client, is illegal and you can be disbarred and fined for it. Haven't read this case closely but it sounds to me like the attorneys said "it's possible these are deep fakes" and not "th…

From my understanding, (good) lawyers will throw every possible defense at the wall (within reason) because one might stick, and if you don't do it at the beginning, you can't call a whoopsiedoodles and go back and try again. This is why they always begin with a petition that the venue is wrong and the court doesn't have jurisdiction, if they want to argue that.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#54

Post by xwdv »

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…

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 deliberately had bad intention. You might go in thinking you’ll win easily with manufacturerd evidence and come out with greater felonies and complete eradication of your reputation.

You think you might be so fucking smart using off the shelf components to make yourself a deep fake, rest assured there are always people smarter than you out there. Intellects vast and deep that will easily pierce through your lies and destroy you. Do not attempt to provoke them. They will relish in picking your remains apart.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#55

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

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?

there is no evidence that makes you guilty, it requires a judge or jury to find you so, versus the default state of innocence

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#56

Post by ridgered4 »

ccvannorman wrote: post #5

"Tesla lawyers argue Musk cannot be held accountable for public statements [about car safety] because anyone could have made a deepfake of Musk, so no public statements can be taken seriously." Court laughs.

A more realistic defense would be that Musk is a clown and all statements he makes are intended to incite laughter rather than be taken seriously.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#57

Post by dragonwriter »

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, it does not. It means you can't exclude it from being presented because it “might be” a deepfake.

The fact that something is presented as evidence doesn’t mandate the jury to accept the evidence as dispositive.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#58

Post by Raidion »

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"?

Useless? No. Possibly open to being faked? Yes.

Lots of ways to sign photos and videos today that should make them fully verifiable in the future (assuming public/private key cryptography remains secure). For stuff that isn't signed, it's not like good old detective work can't verify in a lot of cases. Phone records, eye witnesses, additional unpublished recordings, etc.

Also being verified really only matters when it comes to "truth" as defined by law. It's not like your family won't enjoy your videos of Christmas '23.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#60

Post by pmarreck »

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 don't agree that outright lying is tolerated, but one thing I was very disappointed to learn after independently learning about most of the informal logical fallacies is that lawyers do not avoid them. In fact, they use them to win cases.

This is tantamount to, but NOT equivalent to, "lying" in my book. Some of the most famous defenses in history, such as Cochran's "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH-VuP_5cA4 were fundamentally, fallacious appeals in nature.

Hugely disappointing to me. Would love for a lawyer to chime in on this.

If I could come up with any defense of this practice at all, I'd say that if you took my reasoning to its logical extreme, then the persuasive personality of an attorney themselves could be considered a fallacy, and that would be an unreasonable expectation to satisfy the elimination of. You could also argue that if 2 opposing lawyers are both permitted to make fallacious appeals that wouldn't be called out by judges or jury, then in theory they'd mostly cancel each other out. Maybe.

Post reply on HN