4 ms·

This sounds like a weird rationalization for an absurd case of technical ignorance. Like when people defended nuking hurricanes or using UV lights as a Covid th

This sounds like a weird rationalization for an absurd case of technical ignorance. Like when people defended nuking hurricanes or using UV lights as a Covid therapy.

CamperBob2 5y ago
Fact is, you have no idea what kind of unsolicited postprocessing the camera in the Rittenhouse trial might or might not have performed, and neither did the court. It's a huge potential problem, and getting worse by the day.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- iszomer 5y ago
  Agreed as we've been living in the era of deep fakes for a while. I shudder to think how computational photography can advance to such a degree to blur the context to any unsuspecting user, whether accidental or intentional.
- dagmx 5y ago
  Except, specifically to the Rittenhouse trial, it was about playback processing NOT capture time processing. Capture time processing is also verifiable with regards to what stack a particular device uses with the use of metadata, and as such has little in the way of extra problems over other potential doctored evidence which have been possible for years without smart phone devices. Do we question what color film would portray an image for example? Is a particular lensing affecting the truth of an image? A specific crop? There's no such thing as a perfectly true photo or video.
ALittleLight 5y ago
It's perfectly reasonable to ask what image processing is done to get an enhanced image.
Dah00n 5y ago
If a camera can replace a head with a leaf nothing taken with that camera can be trusted, especially in court, ever. Any changes to photos or videos should be avoided. This is the norm in court cases. You should read a proper article about it instead of the click baity ones.
- tandymodel100 5y ago
  This aged poorly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750660
  - kahrl 5y ago
    No it didn't. The point still stands that AI enhanced images have a credibility and admissibility problem. This one example turning out to not have been altered in the way we thought it was by the enhancer doesn't invalidate the broader questions brought forth by the discussion.
tagoregrtst 5y ago
Both sides have a right to question evidence. Defending the suitability of evidence is the duty of re council who introduced it. The prosecution couldn't explain how the iPhone zooms and it was on them to do so. Btw, the prosecution later on were caught tampering with evidence.

This sounds like a weird rationalization for an absurd case of technical ignorance. Like when people defended nuking hurricanes or using UV lights as a Covid therapy.

CamperBob2 5y ago

Fact is, you have no idea what kind of unsolicited postprocessing the camera in the Rittenhouse trial might or might not have performed, and neither did the court. It's a huge potential problem, and getting worse by the day.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
iszomer 5y ago
Agreed as we've been living in the era of deep fakes for a while. I shudder to think how computational photography can advance to such a degree to blur the context to any unsuspecting user, whether accidental or intentional.
dagmx 5y ago
Except, specifically to the Rittenhouse trial, it was about playback processing NOT capture time processing. Capture time processing is also verifiable with regards to what stack a particular device uses with the use of metadata, and as such has little in the way of extra problems over other potential doctored evidence which have been possible for years without smart phone devices. Do we question what color film would portray an image for example? Is a particular lensing affecting the truth of an image? A specific crop? There's no such thing as a perfectly true photo or video.

ALittleLight 5y ago

It's perfectly reasonable to ask what image processing is done to get an enhanced image.

Dah00n 5y ago

If a camera can replace a head with a leaf nothing taken with that camera can be trusted, especially in court, ever. Any changes to photos or videos should be avoided. This is the norm in court cases. You should read a proper article about it instead of the click baity ones.

tandymodel100 5y ago
This aged poorly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750660
- kahrl 5y ago
  No it didn't. The point still stands that AI enhanced images have a credibility and admissibility problem. This one example turning out to not have been altered in the way we thought it was by the enhancer doesn't invalidate the broader questions brought forth by the discussion.

tagoregrtst 5y ago

Both sides have a right to question evidence. Defending the suitability of evidence is the duty of re council who introduced it. The prosecution couldn't explain how the iPhone zooms and it was on them to do so. Btw, the prosecution later on were caught tampering with evidence.