9 ms·
I’ve said it here before and I’ll say it again: Audio and video evidence isn't admissible because it's audio or video (and may be inadmissible nonetheless). It
by staticautomatic 6y ago
I’ve said it here before and I’ll say it again:
Audio and video evidence isn't admissible because it's audio or video (and may be inadmissible nonetheless). It's admissible because someone testifies under oath that they have personal knowledge of its provenance. The burden is on the party introducing the evidence to show that it's reliable, and the question of whether or not it is indeed reliable is a factual one for a judge or jury to answer. It's not assumed to be "true" or to accurately reflect reality just because it's a purported photo, video, or audio recording.
- jimkleiber 6y agoI appreciate you saying this, I hadn't known that. I think therefore it may be OK in the court of law but what about in the court of public opinion? I could see videos like this easily eroding our trust in the judicial system even further.
- diegoperini 6y agoIt's probably not gonna take a single generation to get used to this but as it always happened with new technology throughout centuries, people who are born into this new normal will know how not to be fooled.
- germinalphrase 6y agoWill they be able to? Widespread cynicism and distrust feels more likely.
- lkxijlewlf 6y agoThis works in a courtroom. This won't work for a politician who retweets a faked video that then incites real violence. And that, at least for now, is where we truly need to be concerned.
- munk-a 6y agoIt doesn't work right now due to the partisan divide in America. Spreading misinformation to help your party's cause isn't currently looked down on - so, honestly, having deepfakes out there might not hurt much and might at least help reduce the weight that blatantly doctored videos carry with the general populace.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- keiferski 6y agoThe onus of responsibility is still on the person doing the violence. Contrary to the fearmongering, I'd say deepfakes will just make people not believe things they read on the Internet (again), especially as the technology becomes more widespread.
- scarmig 6y agoWhere the ultimate onus of responsibility falls doesn't matter much when you've got a bunch of Rohingya hanging from trees because some politician retweeted a fake video.
- keiferski 6y agoIf you follow it through, that line of argument makes no sense. If the video weren't fake, would that somehow make the murder of Rohingya acceptable? Of course not. Ultimately you end up back at the beginning: holding people, and not pieces of information, accountable for their actions. That's an issue with civil society, not social media.
- scarmig 6y agoDeepfakes have the potential to exacerbate existing issues in civil society. If your husband has just been murdered because of a riot instigated by a deepfake, it's not a great comfort to know that it's not really the "fault" of the deepfake but instead the "fault" of a broken civil society. Plus, deepfakes have the potential to create much more noxious videos than real life. Real life videos depict real life people, flaws and complexities all included; deepfakes will be constructed to depict representations of the target that're most likely to generate inchoate rage of the mob. It's rare that the former happens to be exactly the latter.
- mrfox321 6y agoBut the jury are humans. Should we be confident that a jury of 12 (if in US) can pretend that really convincing deepfakes should not be trusted? Especially when this form of evidence has been trustworthy for a decent chunk of time?
- staticautomatic 6y agoIf no one can testify about the video’s provenance, then it simply won’t be admitted into evidence. If someone commits perjury in order to get the video admitted, the jurors will be the least of the problems.
- iso1210 6y agoPeople commit perjury all the time