13 ms·
A “deepfake” is at the center of a harassment case, but what if it’s not faked?
- danso 6y agoThread on initial news story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26447471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26447471
- panzagl 6y agoDoesn't matter where the material came from, there was still harassment.
- joe_the_user 6y agoThis seems like the main point. Defamation can include true statements in a number of situations, notably when someone isn't a public figure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
- jcranmer 6y agoIn the US, truth is absolute defense to defamation: if the defendant can show that the alleged statement is true, the defamation case fails right then and there. The difference between public and non-public figures with respect to defamation is that the statement needs to be made with "actual malice" if the figure is public (i.e., knew it was false or recklessly disregarded the falsehood).
- willcipriano 6y agoWatch the embedded video. Either some random woman with no apparent background in this work made the most convincing deep fake I've ever seen, or that young woman was caught on film smoking something. If its really fake the folks over at Sassy Justice should hire her, their stuff looks like garbage in comparison.
- bigtones 6y agoA young woman was caught on film vaping - it is inconclusive to me it was THAT young woman.
- willcipriano 6y agoThat is certainly possible but I'd personally bet that her own mother would know instantly if that was the case.
- _Microft 6y agoWell, there were people mistaking pictures of others for pictures of themselves already... https://www.dpreview.com/news/7021408195/hipster-offended-after-mistaking-himself-for-hipster-in-study-about-lookalike-hipsters https://www.dpreview.com/news/7021408195/hipster-offended-af...
- Aeronwen 6y agoThey might have had more evidence that the story didn't claim, but just saying "Our records show Joe Fakename is the guy in the photo, you must be lying." Doesn't actually disprove the guy's claim that the photo was stolen.
- whimsicalism 6y agoYeah, having watched that, there's no chance that is a "deepfake" and likely is not a fake at all.
- SolarNet 6y agoI mean it's pretty classic trick to mix in real stuff with fake stuff. This video was probably really, but one of the videos in question is apparently fake.
- robgibbons 6y agoI agree 100%. Although this is purely anecdotal, I have a great track record at identifying deepfakes (I've aced every deepfake challenge I've seen so far) and my brain assures me that the video is not faked.
- henriquez 6y agoThe story here isn't about harassment or the technical chops of some bitter mom. This is the perfect way for the Mockingbird Media to introduce the concept of a "deepfake" to the public. A video, followed by claims it's fake, followed by claims it might not be fake. The end result is confused and more easily-manipulated masses who need to trust authorities to vet all information they receive, an abusive but codependent relationship.
- udhdhxnxn 6y agoIt is also a great opportunity to reveal blackmail inflation and the impact on controlled elites.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- phreeza 6y agoIs this a thing?
- brippalcharrid 6y agoI'd love for this information to be released now, but wouldn't publishing cryptographic hashes of the material now (or a decade ago) prevent it from being dismissed as deepfakery if it's released in the future?
- macawfish 6y agoI looked this up and was not disappointed. Thanks for sharing!
- depingus 6y agoI think Trey Parker and Matt Stone did an the best introduction to deep fakes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM
- joe_the_user 6y agoThe end result is confused and more easily-manipulated masses who need to trust authorities to vet all information they receive, an abusive but codependent relationship. On the one hand, yeah, it's definitely more how the press likes a human interest story mixed with whatever is flavor of the month (the techno wow of "deep fakes"). But on the hand, the tone you take in that last sentence is really off-kilter. The press just works in a kind of hysterical fashion, moral panics (even conspiracy theories) aren't conspiracies but natural. Attributing stuff to a malicious effort to make the public more manipulable (as if that was necessary) should be dropped in favor of the natural incompetence of the press in framing issues reasonably. Edit: "Mocking Bird" above is a phrase referencing CIA manipulation of the media. This is a bit of over the top for just some rather screechy but pretty ordinary story.
- im3w1l 6y ago> While prosecutors have not provided specifics, tools designed to make women appear nude in images with the aid of artificial intelligence (AI) do exist. They may be able to generate a "plausible" nude, suitable for rubbing one out. But it's not a real nude. Moles and scars wont match. The data is just not there, so the manipulator has to make something up. Thus I think the nudes are actually the most promising for conclusively proving or disproving a manipulation.
- lazide 6y agoHard to disprove without stripping naked for a court witness though, which is a pretty high degree of ‘shitty’ that would be easy to cause. Especially if you used a ton of stolen bikini photos to generate the deep fake. Not a lot of skin that wouldn’t exactly match, and the parts that don’t would definitely not be for public consumption.
- lurquer 6y agoDon’t now why you’re getting downvoted. This happens. Particularly in rape cases where the woman (or child) describes some particular feature on the alleged rapists genitals. Michael Jackson had to strip down, as I recall. Obviously not in open court.
- jjk166 6y agoYou don't need to strip naked, you just need to show one discrepancy. Cut a hole in a pair of cheap jeans where you have a mole that's not in the video.
- lazide 6y agoHardly - almost none of the video we’re talking about has that type of resolution, it’s easy to ‘paint on’ something like a mole or a birthmark, compression side effects can nuke some pixels, etc. You’d spend a lot of time and effort explaining one mole difference - and that’s if you legitimately had one. If you didn’t, what else are you going to go on?
- 6y ago
- mensetmanusman 6y ago“ “Scary though if it isn’t a deepfake,” Shamook added. “This could be the start of people being able to discredit real evidence by simply saying ‘deepfake.'” “ This. I have been in a jury, and I wouldn’t be surprised if image based evidence won’t always be discounted by defense attorneys. It probably is already starting for the high paid ones (e.g. the notion itself will protect the rich.) It brings up an interesting future where you can’t trust any witness testimony (because people do misremember) or any video, image, or audio evidence due to this technology. The only societal workaround will be to implant cryptographic keys inside of bodies and monitor all interactions on some blockchain /s?
- jmcqk6 6y agoI don't think this is new at all. The specifics might be new, but the problem is quite old, and has been with us for thousands of years. I think the danger is in trying to come up with an abstract, general solution for it. I don't think one exists. I think the only thing we can do is deal with things on a case by case basis in these situations.
- pvarangot 6y agoI thought that juries are instructed to decided when it's "beyond any reasonable doubt"? So if the defense wants to discredit video evidence they have to make a case that that's a reasonable doubt, probably have experts review the video and provide at least a sketch up of the motive behind spending resources on forging evidence like that. Also I understand that in most cases that go to trial there's more than just video evidence.
- Ma8ee 6y agoIt would surprise me if there aren’t cases where the only evidence is security camera footage.
- paxys 6y agoIMO it's a step in the right direction. Photos and videos should at minimum be signed/cryptographically verifiable if they are used as key testimony in court. We have had the tools to easily and convincingly fake photos for decades now. I can bet there are people behind bars today because someone got creative with photoshop.
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoCan someone fill me in here? Would an anonymous video with no chain of custody ever be admissible in court even without deepfakes? After all, there was always CGI.
- ceejayoz 6y agoIt would certainly be admissible. You could also certainly get an expert witness to give their opinion on whether that video is CGI or not.
- navaati 6y agoYou would also have to pay this expert witness… if you can.
- tiahura 6y agoYes. In order to have a photo admitted you just have to lay the foundation via a witness. To lay the foundation for admission for a photograph into evidence, ask questions such as these: Q. Mr. Witness, I'm handing you a photograph that's been marked Exhibit 2 for identification. What is depicted in that photograph? A. A stoplight at the intersection of 4th and Pine. Q. Is that photograph a fair and accurate representation of the stoplight at 4th and Pine as it existed on the day of the collision? A. Yes, it is. At this point, you can move for admission of the photograph into evidence. https://www.illinoistrialpractice.com/2004/11/foundational_qu.html https://www.illinoistrialpractice.com/2004/11/foundational_q... On cross examination the other side has the right to try to discredit the witness: “Aren’t you really blind, couldn’t this be a deepfake, “ etc. And, they have the right to put on an expert or other witness to testify that it’s fake or the wrong picture or whatever. In the end, it all goes to the jury and they get to make of it what they will.
- ALittleLight 6y agoWeintraub also stated during the press conference that investigators determined that the vaping video had been manipulated after analyzing its “metadata,” a term which refers to embedded information in digital media that can reveal how and when it was last edited. But after contacting Reiss, the officer who investigated Spone, the Daily Dot learned that police never actually obtained the original vaping video. Instead, like what was seen on NBC News, police only had access to a cellphone recording taken by Spone of the vaping video being played on a separate device. Any metadata analysis would therefore fail to include information on the source video. In response to questions on how it could have been determined that the vaping footage was manipulated without access to the original video, Reiss argued that he could see with his “naked eye” elements that “don’t make sense.” ----- So... They can tell by the metadata on a copy of the file plus a naked eye analysis of the video that this is a deep fake? That's much worse evidence for the deep fake case than I assumed there would be. This does make me wonder though: Should we default to believing video or doubting it? Does the victim here need to prove it is a deep fake or the perpetrator prove it's not?
- ASalazarMX 6y ago> In response to questions on how it could have been determined that the vaping footage was manipulated without access to the original video, Reiss argued that he could see with his "naked eye" elements that "don’t make sense." Never expected to see a version of the "I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time." meme used as legal testimony.
- aaron695 6y agoThe fact Sassy Justice is meta says a lot about where deep fake tech is at. When CNN starts using deep fake tech to show Trump throwing a bowl of fish food into a pond, then it's reached maturity.
- crazygringo 6y agoThis is no different from whether a letter was or wasn't faked, or an e-mail, or whether a signature was forged or not. You just get an expert witness (or opposing ones) to testify as to the likelihood of something being forgery or not and why, as well as take things like motivation, means, etc. into account. There's literally nothing different about deepfakes. We have a well-established court system for handling this.
- lolsal 6y ago> There's literally nothing different about deepfakes. That's a bit disingenuous don't you think?
- crazygringo 6y agoIn the context of a court's ability to deal with them? No. What's disingenuous about it?
- lolsal 6y ago> In the context of a court's ability to deal with them? From the legal perspective, I think you're right that "at the end of the day" faked evidence is faked evidence and we do have protocols and processes for that kind of thing. Dismissing faked evidence is not new. However, earlier you said this: > There's literally nothing different about deepfakes. I'd argue requiring AI/ML to create or invalidate deep fakes is _literally_ very different from generating fake emails, fake photos, or fake audio. It's also _literally_ different from things like CGI video. The standard of what counts as evidence is _literally_ changing as deep fakes evolve. Validating video evidence, in the new era of deep fakes is now very different. Your clarification about the context of the courts ability to deal with them is an example of how you were being disingenuous, in my opinion. You made a blanket statement about deep fakes are literally the same as other faked evidence and then afterwards put a clarifying condition around the statement to narrow it to the court's ability to deal with faked evidence. If we're just talking about faked evidence and how to deal with it - I think we agree: Determine if evidence is legitimate however you have to, and then toss it out if it's not legitimate. But we're talking about deep fakes in this context and your statements dismissed all of the things that make deep fakes different in the context of determining legitimate evidence, or how deep fakes will impact the court system. We are transitioning (over decades, already) from a standard of evidence of "This is video evidence of the truth of what happened" to "Some people think this video is probably not real." That's a big difference.
- vmception 6y agolol a video being manipulated doesn't mean its a deepfake but I suppose it will follow the same standard as sexual harassment and rape victims: if they’ve ever altered the truth in the past then their current experience is invalidated for the purpose of using a court to reduce freedom for someone else so videos will have to be closest to raw sensor data or inadmissable
- nightpool 6y agoSo just to summarize: 1. A cheerleader's mom anonymously texted some images and a video of a rival cheerleader to her coach. One of these images was a deepfake—a swimsuit photo off of Facebook edited to make the subject look nude. The other images and the video (of the girls drinking and smoking), were real. 2. The girl and her mom were charged with cyber harassment and harassment. The prosecutors weren't entirely clear on which of the photos + video were real and which were edited—the victim claimed they were all fake—but the whole thing was generally classed as harassment. Later, the police claimed that "metadata analysis" proved the video was fake. 3. ABC (among others, but ABC is mentioned in this article) ran a TV spot about this story, repeating the prosecutor's assertion that the video was manipulated 4. Twitter user @HenryAjder ("Deepfake expert"), among others, pointed out the error 5. The DailyDot published this article This seems like a bit of a nothingburger? Any reason we're still talking about this? Nobody was "discrediting evidence", the videos & photos were only evidence to one thing—that someone sent them to her coach in order to get her kicked off the team. Whether they were real or not was immaterial to the harassment that occurred.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- swiley 6y agoWow I was expecting assholes from 4chan not an obsessive soccer mom.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoTechnology trickles down Nations state > Bigco > Smallco > Neckbeards > Karen (skipping some steps but you catch the drift). The metadata stuff the NSA was doing 20yr ago is what advertisers are doing today. SpaceX is doing stuff that was recently only the purview of nation states.
- lupire 6y agoThe use of weird slurs obscures the point you are making.
- jjk166 6y ago> “The videos or the images already existed in some form and then our allegation—this is of course subject to proof at trial, she’s innocent until proven guilty—but our allegation is that Mrs. Spone took existing images from existing social media from these three victims’ existing social media accounts and manipulated them,” Weintraub said. > The statement is similar to claims made by Engelhart to the Daily Dot that Spone allegedly used legitimate video as a basis for the deepfake. Police did not know whether the alleged victim’s face was added to a video of another young female vaping or if a vaping pen and smoke was digitally added to a legitimate video of the alleged victim. If you're saying that she started with one video or image that was publicly accessible and modified it, I'd expect them to have the original video or image so they could tell what was added.
- qwerty456127 6y agoI'm just curious how many centuries will have to pass before we outgrow the bullshit society where being exposed smoking, drinking (but not harming anybody while drunk) and posing nude can harm you.
- epanchin 6y agoThis person allegedly created a deepfake video that simulated a child nude, and sent it to someone else. Why was she not charged with creating and distributing child pornography?