91–100 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Datestamps are part of the keyed metadata.
My camera has no clue what date it is beyond what I tell it the date is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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”
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.)
So it seems like if it comes from a security camera and you can say how it was recorded then that’s good, but if it’s video found on social media and you don’t know who recorded it then that should count against it.
I think before building anything, it might make sense to see what security cameras already do?
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.)
Having unforgeable signatures on every image-capture device just in case some output file could be submitted as evidence in a civil case would be a privacy and safety _nightmare_, OTOH.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
From the federal rules of evidence:
> (a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-ix/rule-901/
Specific to recordings
> An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.
https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-x/rule-1002/
Unfortunately, the rules of evidence are pretty vague about what is actually required to prove that a video is admitable as evidence; but the burden to do so is absolutely on the party introducing it.
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…
IANAL, but this sounds appropriate to me? Couldn't all forms evidence be hit with various types of "this might be fake" claims? So I think it's fair that the court assert that you must claim "this is fake", then be willing to battle it out with the opposing side. Otherwise it's not a defense, it's just empty words, isn't it?
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My camera has no clue what date it is beyond what I tell it the date is.
Which makes video evidence from your camera more suspect than video evidence from a cellphone (which, sure, could be fake-dated as well).
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…