4 ms·

Normally in court you have to provide foundation that the evidence is accurate, for video that normally means the person that recorded the video tells the jury

Normally in court you have to provide foundation that the evidence is accurate, for video that normally means the person that recorded the video tells the jury it is a true and accurate representation of what they saw. however the courts have been lack of late allowing police to download social media and YT videos and attest that "the video is a true and accurate representation of what I saw on social media post" because they often can not find, or can not secure the person that actually took the video (or the video was taken by the defendant who can not be made to testify against themselves) It is very dangerous when we start lessing the requirements for foundation in the law, and the courts have been doing that on many fronts when it comes to "forensic science" (see bite mark evidence as another example of this)

majormajor 3y ago
What Musk is doing is sneakier and more deceptive in a different way than that, at an earlier stage. He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. From a linked article from the one posted here, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musks-statements-could-be-deepfakes-tesla-defence-lawyers-tell-court https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musk... : > The attorneys for Huang’s family sought to depose Musk regarding recorded statements from 2016 in which he allegedly said: “A Model S and Model X, at this point, can drive autonomously with greater safety than a person. Right now.” > Tesla, however, opposed the request in court filings, arguing that Musk, the Tesla CEO, cannot recall details about the statement and questioning the authenticity of the recording. The judge's ruling here is "ok then if you want me to think it's fake, tell me that under oath." It's doubtful Musk would be willing to claim this one was fake - there are a lot of witnesses that could be dug up. He could do the weaker "I don't remember" song and dance, but he's trying to just avoid the issue entirely.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  Funny, I got the impression he was basically saying "I'm free to say anything at all now and can no longer be held in any way accountable for my own words."
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? > It's doubtful Musk would be willing to claim this one was fake - there are a lot of witnesses that could be dug up. But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? He doesn't have to remember it for it to be good evidence. If he wants to say "I don't think I would've said that", go for it. > But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated? The video is perfectly good evidence (and its age and provenance make it pretty reputable). If the defense contests its veracity, that's when you start going to witnesses.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > He doesn't have to remember it for it to be good evidence. He doesn't have to remember it for it to be bad evidence either. > If he wants to say "I don't think I would've said that", go for it. But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? > The video is perfectly good evidence (and its age and provenance make it pretty reputable). If the defense contests its veracity, that's when you start going to witnesses. The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't. The point is that they should have to prove it. Sometimes they'll be able to.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        > But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. (He doesn't. He knows it's a genuine video.) Again, a vague assertion that "sometimes people make deepfakes about me" doesn't cut it. > The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't. The defense is highly unlikely to make the claim that a seven year old video on a prominent channel with top industry reporters didn't happen. Plenty of pieces of evidence get entered into the court's records without being contested.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  "Is it likely, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that Musk, who has stated multiple times in hundreds of interviews, and company statements, and videos that the company created on websites entirely under their control, would or would not have made a statement materially and structurally similar to this one?" Also, how good was deep faking in 2016? The video has been around since then. Is Musk's argument that this was a long con to sue Tesla seven years later? And then you have the concept that all it would take is alternate footage of same statement, B-roll, etc., to add to the "what, were all these deep fakes, too?"
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    How would you establish this video has been around since 2016? I could easily upload the same video and put a caption under it of "filmed shortly after the birth of Elon Musk" on it.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      And could you also fake news articles referencing it all the way back to then? Or the Internet Archive? At some point you recognize that "reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "insurmountable evidence to disprove even the worse conspiracy theorist/asshole wrong".
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > I could easily upload the same video and put a caption under it of "filmed shortly after the birth of Elon Musk" on it. Except it's on YouTube, not a website under their control, which means you now need to argue - with convincing evidence - that YouTube is in on a conspiracy to defraud the court to get at Musk.
- xur17 3y ago
  > The judge's ruling here is "ok then if you want me to think it's fake, tell me that under oath." Which seems quite reasonable to me. Tbh, reading the initial article, I almost imagine Musk discussing his case with his lawyers, and saying something off the cuft like "can't we just argue that this was a deep-fake", and forcing them to run with it.

majormajor 3y ago

What Musk is doing is sneakier and more deceptive in a different way than that, at an earlier stage. He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. From a linked article from the one posted here, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musks-statements-could-be-deepfakes-tesla-defence-lawyers-tell-court https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musk... : > The attorneys for Huang’s family sought to depose Musk regarding recorded statements from 2016 in which he allegedly said: “A Model S and Model X, at this point, can drive autonomously with greater safety than a person. Right now.” > Tesla, however, opposed the request in court filings, arguing that Musk, the Tesla CEO, cannot recall details about the statement and questioning the authenticity of the recording. The judge's ruling here is "ok then if you want me to think it's fake, tell me that under oath." It's doubtful Musk would be willing to claim this one was fake - there are a lot of witnesses that could be dug up. He could do the weaker "I don't remember" song and dance, but he's trying to just avoid the issue entirely.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
Funny, I got the impression he was basically saying "I'm free to say anything at all now and can no longer be held in any way accountable for my own words."
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? > It's doubtful Musk would be willing to claim this one was fake - there are a lot of witnesses that could be dug up. But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? He doesn't have to remember it for it to be good evidence. If he wants to say "I don't think I would've said that", go for it. > But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated? The video is perfectly good evidence (and its age and provenance make it pretty reputable). If the defense contests its veracity, that's when you start going to witnesses.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > He doesn't have to remember it for it to be good evidence. He doesn't have to remember it for it to be bad evidence either. > If he wants to say "I don't think I would've said that", go for it. But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? > The video is perfectly good evidence (and its age and provenance make it pretty reputable). If the defense contests its veracity, that's when you start going to witnesses. The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't. The point is that they should have to prove it. Sometimes they'll be able to.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. (He doesn't. He knows it's a genuine video.) Again, a vague assertion that "sometimes people make deepfakes about me" doesn't cut it. > The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't. The defense is highly unlikely to make the claim that a seven year old video on a prominent channel with top industry reporters didn't happen. Plenty of pieces of evidence get entered into the court's records without being contested.
FireBeyond 3y ago
"Is it likely, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that Musk, who has stated multiple times in hundreds of interviews, and company statements, and videos that the company created on websites entirely under their control, would or would not have made a statement materially and structurally similar to this one?" Also, how good was deep faking in 2016? The video has been around since then. Is Musk's argument that this was a long con to sue Tesla seven years later? And then you have the concept that all it would take is alternate footage of same statement, B-roll, etc., to add to the "what, were all these deep fakes, too?"
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  How would you establish this video has been around since 2016? I could easily upload the same video and put a caption under it of "filmed shortly after the birth of Elon Musk" on it.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    And could you also fake news articles referencing it all the way back to then? Or the Internet Archive? At some point you recognize that "reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "insurmountable evidence to disprove even the worse conspiracy theorist/asshole wrong".
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > I could easily upload the same video and put a caption under it of "filmed shortly after the birth of Elon Musk" on it. Except it's on YouTube, not a website under their control, which means you now need to argue - with convincing evidence - that YouTube is in on a conspiracy to defraud the court to get at Musk.
xur17 3y ago
> The judge's ruling here is "ok then if you want me to think it's fake, tell me that under oath." Which seems quite reasonable to me. Tbh, reading the initial article, I almost imagine Musk discussing his case with his lawyers, and saying something off the cuft like "can't we just argue that this was a deep-fake", and forcing them to run with it.