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

71–80 of 200 posts

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#71

Post by johndhi »

bombcar wrote: post #53
johndhi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's generally true: you "waive" certain defenses if you don't state them, at certain points in the litigation process.

That said, at the most important moments, typically lawyers will focus on the 3-or-so 'best' (in their view) defenses and focus on those. Then if you lose, you can appeal and say the judge didn't consider your 15th-best defense closely enough :)

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#72

Post by konschubert »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #64

This is fascinating, within a few years or so there will be no way to determine whether a video was deep faked or not with 100% accuracy.

This had been true forever for documents and letters and other kinds of evidence. Courts can deal with uncertainty

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#73

Post by ridgered4 »

Ekaros wrote: post #20

About Musk case, couldn't you simply gather enough people who were present and ask if this recording matches their recollection of what he said on that day? Just like most witness testimonies work.

All this technology and recordings just amount to eye witness testimony again. Crazy.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#74

Post by mandmandam »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #18
RecycledEle wrote: post #15

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.

Couldn't you appeal and get expert testimony to verify the videos?

The way I've seen this work is that the Judge throws that in with 17 other bullshit arguments.

And unless you can take a thorough and comprehensive swipe at all eighteen, which takes about 160 pages of filings, then your odds of even being heard on appeal are small. Something like 90% of appeals that do get heard lose anyway.

This all costs a lot of money when lawyers cost $150 - $700 per hour. Expert testimony costs about the same. Appeals end up costing from $10k to $50k.

And how demoralized are you, to hear your judge saying things like that against you. US judges have little fear of accountability. The statistics there are abysmal.

No large media outlet will comment on such a decision. Few higher courts would ever inflict any punishment on the judge. To get punished as a judge you need to either provably ruin hundreds of lives , like in the kids-for-cash scandal [0], or one very wealthy and connected life.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#75

Post by IMSAI8080 »

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'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 along soon. Then there's just simply the weight of other evidence that may be present e.g. whether witnesses agree they said the statement etc.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#76

Post by unshavedyak »

bombcar wrote: post #43
moffkalast wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It also depends on the court in question. Ie in my recent criminal Jury experience; if i were to pretend deepfakes were used then it wouldn't be on the prosecution to prove that the video is without a doubt real, but rather that a "reasonable person" would believe that the video is real. Which is quite open to interpretation.

For a Jury i think it would come down to how convincingly the defense argued that the video is a deepfake. Just saying the words "it's a deepfake" hypothetically wouldn't/shouldn't be enough to convince a "reasonable person" to believe all video evidence is now fake without concrete evidence (if any is even possible) from the prosecution.

Disclaimer: I'm quite unfamiliar with the nuance of the legal system. But i keep using the words "reasonable person" because this was hammered into us in the Jury. We were given a small book of legal definitions related to the criminal case and just about every page framed each definition around a "reasonable person". This seemed to be how the state defined any nuance between the English language and strict logic.

This would, i imagine, help mitigate a hypothetical defense of "all evidence is faked" or w/e.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#77

Post by anonymouskimmer »

svachalek wrote: post #52
Raidion wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Datestamps are part of the keyed metadata.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#78

Post by beerpls »

ridgered4 wrote: post #56
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.

[flagged]

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#79

Post by theLiminator »

blondie9x wrote: post #35
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.

How would that relate to the hashing explained here?

I imagine the guy above is thinking any device can produce a hashed video, but I think we'll need the notion of cryptographically secure cameras or something with write once memory that has to be swapped out once in a while. The alternative being cameras that upload the hash of every clip into a server to provide non repudiation.

Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes

#80

Post by diydsp »

RecycledEle wrote: post #15

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.

What other elements did they have in them? e.g. was it your video vs police?
Post reply on HN