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

61–70 of 200 posts

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#61

Post by falcolas »

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.

Hiring expert witnesses is what lawyers do when it comes to anything remotely specialized. Deepfakes are nothing new in this regards.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#62

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#63

Post by ceejayoz »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #31
noughtme wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t seem unreasonable. Isn’t this already the case for politicians in the US? (Not related to deepfakes, just any public statement). Wouldn’t any legal matters defer to written contracts and TOS?

Indeed. Given the current state of affairs, I think if anyone were to be a victim of a deepfake smear campaing, Musk is easily in top 10 of the most likely candidates.

Musk is welcome to say "that's a deep fake, I never said that".

He can't say "because I'm the target of deep fakes, you can't use any video evidence against me".

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#65

Post by konschubert »

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

People have faked letters and documents for centuries.

I’m not a lawyer, but don’t courts have a way of weighting the trustworthiness of a piece of evidence?

In Mr. Musks case, there are many witnesses who observed him making the statements that are shown in the video.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#66

Post by ironmagma »

splendidHaiku wrote: post #21
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…

Everything will be considered fake unless it is proven authentic. How do we prove authentic? Same way we prove that a website we visit is authentic. Every recording made will be signed/hashed and be able to validate of the public key of the recording device (every phone will have a key). White House, News Orgs, etc. all will use cameras with public keys so everyone can validate. As soon as only one pixel or frequency…

That would represent a revolution in terms of how the court operates and how many cases are thrown out. There will be riots.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#67

Post by phpisthebest »

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

Normally in court you have to provide foundation that the evidence is accurate, for video that normally means the person that recorded the video tells the jury it is a true and accurate representation of what they saw.

however the courts have been lack of late allowing police to download social media and YT videos and attest that "the video is a true and accurate representation of what I saw on social media post" because they often can not find, or can not secure the person that actually took the video (or the video was taken by the defendant who can not be made to testify against themselves)

It is very dangerous when we start lessing the requirements for foundation in the law, and the courts have been doing that on many fronts when it comes to "forensic science" (see bite mark evidence as another example of this)

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#68

Post by falcolas »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #31
noughtme wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t seem unreasonable. Isn’t this already the case for politicians in the US? (Not related to deepfakes, just any public statement). Wouldn’t any legal matters defer to written contracts and TOS?

Indeed. Given the current state of affairs, I think if anyone were to be a victim of a deepfake smear campaing, Musk is easily in top 10 of the most likely candidates.

Then let Musk hire an expert who can act as a witness. Let the prosecution do the same. AKA - how technical concerns like this are already argued in court.

Photoshop, videos with doubles, and other such impersonation issues have been a thing for a long time, and the courts have found ways to deal with them.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#69

Post by banana_feather »

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?

Dishonesty toward the tribunal is a violation of the rules of professional responsibility/conduct (model rules 3.3 and 8.4(d), the latter is what they disbarred Clinton for).

Federal courts have rule 11, where an attorney can essentially call out the opposing counsel after some cure period and ask the court to impose sanctions on the attorney that's getting out of line. State courts have some equivalent.

In practice, most lawyers don't lie to the court because their career is dependent on maintaining a working relationship with the courts in which they appear. Even within the same case, if the presiding judge has good reason to believe you're a liar, every subsequent motion or argument you make is going to be viewed with skepticism.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#70

Post by anonymouskimmer »

ridgered4 wrote: post #51
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

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…

The onus on the prosecution/plaintiff is to prove the defense guilty at whatever standard of evidence is required for the case. Not to prove or disprove any claims about evidence. If the defense makes a claim about any piece of evidence, it is up to them to prove to the court's satisfaction that their claim is truthful.
Post reply on HN