Nothing new in Indonesia, a supposedly pluralistic country where the parliament opens with Muslim prayer anyway. If a sex tape of yours get stolen and published, they'll drag you to court for "making pornography". When this happens to someone famous, their first defense is "It's fake!".
People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
81–90 of 200 posts
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#83Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The judge just said to Musk come say that you didn’t say the statement in the video instead of having a lawyer say “faking videos is possible”
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#85Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.y…
NAL. But that's partly why the opposing counsel exists - to point these fallacies out to the jury. Make the other side look untrustworthy.
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#87Earlier 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
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.
Interestingly, actually, the "way of weighting the trustworthiness of a piece of evidence" is generally not the job of the court, but of the jury. Assuming the evidence is admissible (meets some minimum standards), the court system is premised on a jury of peers looking at something and deciding if they think it's true or not (such as the testimony of a witness).
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#88Earlier 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
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" bec…
What Musk is doing is sneakier and more deceptive in a different way than that, at an earlier stage. He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not.
From a linked article from the one posted here, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musk... :
> The attorneys for Huang’s family sought to depose Musk regarding recorded statements from 2016 in which he allegedly said: “A Model S and Model X, at this point, can drive autonomously with greater safety than a person. Right now.”
> Tesla, however, opposed the request in court filings, arguing that Musk, the Tesla CEO, cannot recall details about the statement and questioning the authenticity of the recording.
The judge's ruling here is "ok then if you want me to think it's fake, tell me that under oath."
It's doubtful Musk would be willing to claim this one was fake - there are a lot of witnesses that could be dug up. He could do the weaker "I don't remember" song and dance, but he's trying to just avoid the issue entirely.
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#89Earlier 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…
Not to mention one could generate an overwhelming amount of fake video evidence, making it virtually impossible to prove all of it is fake.
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#90Essentially all evidence in court is assumed to be inadmissible (potentially fake) until a "foundation" is laid by the party who wishes to use it as an exhibit at trial.
I can't just turn up with a random photo or video and ask the court to accept it.
Generally this is done by having the person that created the media swear under oath. In the case of a photograph you would have the photographer on the stand and ask them to state that the photo they are shown is the one they took and that it hasn't been edited since they took it.
The (toothless) threat of perjury charges is what is supposed to keep this system working and our trials fair.
If you want to know more about it, post below. I have a fair bit of experience in this.