3 ms·

Doesn't this also mean that a deepfake presented as evidence of crime makes you guilty until proven innocent?

bombcar 4y ago
No, just that you can't hand wave away all video evidence by saying "deepfake". It's no more "guilty until proven innocent" than a signed confession means you're guilty unless you prove it fake; that's the whole point of a trial.0
- unshavedyak 4y ago
  It also depends on the court in question. Ie in my recent criminal Jury experience; if i were to pretend deepfakes were used then it wouldn't be on the prosecution to prove that the video is without a doubt real, but rather that a "reasonable person" would believe that the video is real. Which is quite open to interpretation. For a Jury i think it would come down to how convincingly the defense argued that the video is a deepfake. Just saying the words "it's a deepfake" hypothetically wouldn't/shouldn't be enough to convince a "reasonable person" to believe all video evidence is now fake without concrete evidence (if any is even possible) from the prosecution. Disclaimer: I'm quite unfamiliar with the nuance of the legal system. But i keep using the words "reasonable person" because this was hammered into us in the Jury. We were given a small book of legal definitions related to the criminal case and just about every page framed each definition around a "reasonable person". This seemed to be how the state defined any nuance between the English language and strict logic. This would, i imagine, help mitigate a hypothetical defense of "all evidence is faked" or w/e.
  - sterlind 4y ago
    I think the reasonable person standard is used for evaluating whether someone's behavior is okay. Like, if you tased someone because they were suspicious, the question would be whether a reasonable person would conclude they were suspicious based on what they did. I think you're thinking of reasonable doubt?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Yeah, reasonable doubt applies in "well maybe aliens completely replaced the body and mind of this person before he did this thing recorded on fifteen different phones." Arguing that a video randomly was deepfaked would go a lot further if you could show other evidence that such was happening.
    - unshavedyak 4y ago
      Nope, i'm thinking about "reasonable person". I was just in the case (a few weeks ago) so this is quite fresh in my mind. For additional context, the criminal case i was part of the Jury for was handed a book of definitions for the given case. Things like Assault had qualifiers of Self Defense and Stand Your Ground. Each of these little nuance-y definitions included very implicit definitions of say, the force you use in response to assault for self defense or stand your ground. This responsive force was instructed to be judged against something like "Force that a reasonable person would not believe to be in excess based on the attack". Ie "reasonable" was only able to be decided by a hypothetical "reasonable person". Whether something is reasonable or not was only applicable in the context of the person who is deciding if it's reasonable, also themselves being a reasonable person. Just about every definition page had an explanation quite similar to this. I think due to the fact that human definitions are very difficult to define. Did you hit them too hard? Well we don't have pounds per square inch of your delivery, or w/e concrete definition could use, so the legal definitions were bounded by this hypothetical "reasonable person". It was interesting. edit: I should add, in case it's not clear, that we the Jury were instructed by the judge on the legal definitions. That was the book. We were to view the case through the lens of these legal definitions with the evidence presented. What specifically we were deciding was very important and meticulously managed by the Judge.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        It sounds like you're agreeing; the "reasonable person" definition comes into play in self-defense, threats, etc. The "reasonable doubt" comes into play on the facts.
        4y ago
  - abduhl 4y ago
    The jury is supposed to make all the decisions with respect to weighing evidence once it’s admitted. The standard for admitting evidence is very low if it can be authenticated, and it’s basically “is it relevant and does it have an impact on the questions the jury will be asked to ultimately come to a conclusion on without unduly prejudicing the jury in some way.” The jury’s decision must meet the standard of liability (more likely than not, clear and convincing, no reasonable doubt, etc.) So it’s entirely possible for a ton of evidence to come in that none of it meets what you’d consider the “no reasonable doubt” standard and for a jury to consider all that suspicious evidence to be true enough that they can convict someone under the “no reasonable doubt” standard.
ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
there is no evidence that makes you guilty, it requires a judge or jury to find you so, versus the default state of innocence
- ranger_danger 4y ago
  Yes, but people willing to lie are going to get away with framing others even easier than before, especially if the defendant has bad/no lawyers.
dragonwriter 4y ago
No, it does not. It means you can't exclude it from being presented because it “might be” a deepfake. The fact that something is presented as evidence doesn’t mandate the jury to accept the evidence as dispositive.
wolrah 4y ago
> Doesn't this also mean that a deepfake presented as evidence of crime makes you guilty until proven innocent? It means the same thing that's always been true remains true. If a prosecutor (or one side in a civil case) presents fake evidence that is convincing to the court, the other side will have to prove the evidence to have been faked. Adding machine learning to the equation and calling the fakes "deep" doesn't change that basic reality. Consider everyone who has ever had drugs/weapons planted on them by the cops. As a society we assume most of the people claiming it happened are lying, but some of them are telling the truth and some of that subset actually manage to prove it (usually because the cops managed to record themselves doing it). If the authority figures trusted by the courts intentionally present false evidence then you are stuck not having to prove your innocence but having to prove the evidence to be false or at least untrustworthy.

No, just that you can't hand wave away all video evidence by saying "deepfake". It's no more "guilty until proven innocent" than a signed confession means you're guilty unless you prove it fake; that's the whole point of a trial.0

unshavedyak 4y ago
It also depends on the court in question. Ie in my recent criminal Jury experience; if i were to pretend deepfakes were used then it wouldn't be on the prosecution to prove that the video is without a doubt real, but rather that a "reasonable person" would believe that the video is real. Which is quite open to interpretation. For a Jury i think it would come down to how convincingly the defense argued that the video is a deepfake. Just saying the words "it's a deepfake" hypothetically wouldn't/shouldn't be enough to convince a "reasonable person" to believe all video evidence is now fake without concrete evidence (if any is even possible) from the prosecution. Disclaimer: I'm quite unfamiliar with the nuance of the legal system. But i keep using the words "reasonable person" because this was hammered into us in the Jury. We were given a small book of legal definitions related to the criminal case and just about every page framed each definition around a "reasonable person". This seemed to be how the state defined any nuance between the English language and strict logic. This would, i imagine, help mitigate a hypothetical defense of "all evidence is faked" or w/e.
- sterlind 4y ago
  I think the reasonable person standard is used for evaluating whether someone's behavior is okay. Like, if you tased someone because they were suspicious, the question would be whether a reasonable person would conclude they were suspicious based on what they did. I think you're thinking of reasonable doubt?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Yeah, reasonable doubt applies in "well maybe aliens completely replaced the body and mind of this person before he did this thing recorded on fifteen different phones." Arguing that a video randomly was deepfaked would go a lot further if you could show other evidence that such was happening.
  - unshavedyak 4y ago
    Nope, i'm thinking about "reasonable person". I was just in the case (a few weeks ago) so this is quite fresh in my mind. For additional context, the criminal case i was part of the Jury for was handed a book of definitions for the given case. Things like Assault had qualifiers of Self Defense and Stand Your Ground. Each of these little nuance-y definitions included very implicit definitions of say, the force you use in response to assault for self defense or stand your ground. This responsive force was instructed to be judged against something like "Force that a reasonable person would not believe to be in excess based on the attack". Ie "reasonable" was only able to be decided by a hypothetical "reasonable person". Whether something is reasonable or not was only applicable in the context of the person who is deciding if it's reasonable, also themselves being a reasonable person. Just about every definition page had an explanation quite similar to this. I think due to the fact that human definitions are very difficult to define. Did you hit them too hard? Well we don't have pounds per square inch of your delivery, or w/e concrete definition could use, so the legal definitions were bounded by this hypothetical "reasonable person". It was interesting. edit: I should add, in case it's not clear, that we the Jury were instructed by the judge on the legal definitions. That was the book. We were to view the case through the lens of these legal definitions with the evidence presented. What specifically we were deciding was very important and meticulously managed by the Judge.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      It sounds like you're agreeing; the "reasonable person" definition comes into play in self-defense, threats, etc. The "reasonable doubt" comes into play on the facts.
      - 4y ago
- abduhl 4y ago
  The jury is supposed to make all the decisions with respect to weighing evidence once it’s admitted. The standard for admitting evidence is very low if it can be authenticated, and it’s basically “is it relevant and does it have an impact on the questions the jury will be asked to ultimately come to a conclusion on without unduly prejudicing the jury in some way.” The jury’s decision must meet the standard of liability (more likely than not, clear and convincing, no reasonable doubt, etc.) So it’s entirely possible for a ton of evidence to come in that none of it meets what you’d consider the “no reasonable doubt” standard and for a jury to consider all that suspicious evidence to be true enough that they can convict someone under the “no reasonable doubt” standard.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

there is no evidence that makes you guilty, it requires a judge or jury to find you so, versus the default state of innocence

ranger_danger 4y ago
Yes, but people willing to lie are going to get away with framing others even easier than before, especially if the defendant has bad/no lawyers.

dragonwriter 4y ago

No, it does not. It means you can't exclude it from being presented because it “might be” a deepfake. The fact that something is presented as evidence doesn’t mandate the jury to accept the evidence as dispositive.

wolrah 4y ago

> Doesn't this also mean that a deepfake presented as evidence of crime makes you guilty until proven innocent? It means the same thing that's always been true remains true. If a prosecutor (or one side in a civil case) presents fake evidence that is convincing to the court, the other side will have to prove the evidence to have been faked. Adding machine learning to the equation and calling the fakes "deep" doesn't change that basic reality. Consider everyone who has ever had drugs/weapons planted on them by the cops. As a society we assume most of the people claiming it happened are lying, but some of them are telling the truth and some of that subset actually manage to prove it (usually because the cops managed to record themselves doing it). If the authority figures trusted by the courts intentionally present false evidence then you are stuck not having to prove your innocence but having to prove the evidence to be false or at least untrustworthy.