3 ms·

On topic though, this doesn't make "It could be fake," a reasonable defense. Sure, the surface area will get larger, but we have that problem across all digital

On topic though, this doesn't make "It could be fake," a reasonable defense. Sure, the surface area will get larger, but we have that problem across all digital media at this moment. Deepfakes are no longer unique. The courts will have to deal with it one way or another, and right now expert witnesses is the tool they have, and the tool defendants will need to use.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> On topic though, this doesn't make "It could be fake," a reasonable defense. Why not? If you go into court claiming you have a contract with someone but you have nothing notarized or even signed, you're the one who has to provide evidence of your claim. A video is no longer sufficient to do that because any plaintiff or internet troll now has the ability to convincingly fabricate one. It's no more proof of anything than the plaintiff making an unsubstantiated claim. > The courts will have to deal with it one way or another, and right now expert witnesses is the tool they have, and the tool defendants will need to use. Why should it be the defendants who have to pay for the expert instead of the plaintiffs?
- falcolas 3y ago
  The difference is the difference between "it may be fake" and "it is fake". "May" being the key word that makes it a meaningless observation instead of a defense. If someone wants to defend themselves against video evidence, they need to say that it's fake, and create reasonable doubt about its veracity. You don't do that with "maybe" or "could be". > Why should it be the defendants who have to pay for the expert instead of the plaintiffs? TL;DR: that's how our legal system works in the US, for better or worse. EDIT: You probably don't have to attack the video as a deepfake directly, either. "That's not me, I wasn't at X, I was at Y, and here are receipts and witnesses" are highly likely to work too. Basically, an alibi.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Your distinction doesn't make any sense. Suppose the video isn't of an old statement made by the defendant which they don't remember making, it's a video of one of their products catching fire sourced from an anonymous YouTube account. They have no way to know if that video is fake or not, so on what basis could they claim to know for sure that it is? But because it could very plausibly be fake, they should be able to demand proof that it isn't from the party trying to introduce it as evidence. For example, by having it authenticated by the person who created it, whose credibility could then be questioned etc. > "That's not me, I wasn't at X, I was at Y, and here are receipts and witnesses" are highly likely to work too. Basically, an alibi. An alibi is the defense proving that they couldn't have done it. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the plaintiff. Creating deepfakes is so easy that a plaintiff in possession of one by itself proves nothing.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      "Affirmative defense" is a specific legal term. It means yes, I am guilty of <copying this copyrighted work> but that's OK because <fair use>. As for the rest - you'll have more luck discussing the specifics with your lawyer at this point. Good luck and I hope you find what you need.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> On topic though, this doesn't make "It could be fake," a reasonable defense. Why not? If you go into court claiming you have a contract with someone but you have nothing notarized or even signed, you're the one who has to provide evidence of your claim. A video is no longer sufficient to do that because any plaintiff or internet troll now has the ability to convincingly fabricate one. It's no more proof of anything than the plaintiff making an unsubstantiated claim. > The courts will have to deal with it one way or another, and right now expert witnesses is the tool they have, and the tool defendants will need to use. Why should it be the defendants who have to pay for the expert instead of the plaintiffs?

falcolas 3y ago
The difference is the difference between "it may be fake" and "it is fake". "May" being the key word that makes it a meaningless observation instead of a defense. If someone wants to defend themselves against video evidence, they need to say that it's fake, and create reasonable doubt about its veracity. You don't do that with "maybe" or "could be". > Why should it be the defendants who have to pay for the expert instead of the plaintiffs? TL;DR: that's how our legal system works in the US, for better or worse. EDIT: You probably don't have to attack the video as a deepfake directly, either. "That's not me, I wasn't at X, I was at Y, and here are receipts and witnesses" are highly likely to work too. Basically, an alibi.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Your distinction doesn't make any sense. Suppose the video isn't of an old statement made by the defendant which they don't remember making, it's a video of one of their products catching fire sourced from an anonymous YouTube account. They have no way to know if that video is fake or not, so on what basis could they claim to know for sure that it is? But because it could very plausibly be fake, they should be able to demand proof that it isn't from the party trying to introduce it as evidence. For example, by having it authenticated by the person who created it, whose credibility could then be questioned etc. > "That's not me, I wasn't at X, I was at Y, and here are receipts and witnesses" are highly likely to work too. Basically, an alibi. An alibi is the defense proving that they couldn't have done it. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the plaintiff. Creating deepfakes is so easy that a plaintiff in possession of one by itself proves nothing.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    "Affirmative defense" is a specific legal term. It means yes, I am guilty of <copying this copyrighted work> but that's OK because <fair use>. As for the rest - you'll have more luck discussing the specifics with your lawyer at this point. Good luck and I hope you find what you need.