9 ms·
AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court
- breakingrules3 2y ago[dead]
- fhd2 2y agoSounds like reasonable changes. Generally speaking, I think evidence tampering is not a new problem, and even though it's easy in some cases, I don't think it's _that_ widespread. Just like it's possible to lie on the stand, but people usually think twice before they do it, because _if_ they are found to have lied, they're in trouble. My main concern is rather that legit evidence can now easily be called into question. That seems to me like a much higher risk than fake evidence, considering the overall dynamics. But ultimately: Humanity has coped without photo, audio or video evidence for most of its existence. I suppose it will cope again.
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoI agree. The article didn't touch on this aspect, but we're now at the point where even authentic recordings could be plausibly denied and claimed to be fake. So the entire usage of recordings as evidence will suffer a hit. We may essentially be knocked back to an 18th century level of reliance on eyewitness testimony. One wonders what the consequences for justice will be.
- Ukv 2y agoI wouldn't say we'd be quite back to pre-photo evidence days. I feel a lot if not most of the value in a video/audio recording is not just that the medium has traditionally been difficult to edit, but that it's attesting to a lot of details with high specificity. There's a lot to potentially get caught out on with not a lot of wiggle room when inconsistencies are spotted (compared to recalling from memory). Document scans and static images are still useful despite having long been trivial to edit, for instance.
- dartos 2y agoI think forensic analysis of photographs would reveal pretty quickly if they’re AI anyway. AI images of real life still don’t pass intense scrutiny.
- wongarsu 2y agoAnd we have been able to edit photos nearly as long as we have been able to make them. Yet photo evidence continues being useful
- philipov 2y agoI won't deny that genAI is still a long way from passing the strictest scrutiny, but I don't like the above argument. Ease of use is not a trivial matter, and extreme advances in accessibility can cause a phase-change. Photo evidence continues to be useful because editing photos is below the critical threshold for becoming a problem. If it becomes easy, low-skill, and reliable, at that point we will cross into the realm of Reasonable Doubt. It's the difference between possible, and practical, and pervasive.
- throwway120385 2y agoIt's just another thing you'll have to pay for as the defendant.
- ykonstant 2y agoRight... forensics, the famously reliable discipline.
- dartos 2y agoYou can entirely remove the word “forensics” and my statement would be the same…
- datadrivenangel 2y agoDigital forensics will continue to be an in-demand skill!
- nine_k 2y agoI can easily imagine a future where video evidence is only acceptable in the form of chemically developed analog film, at resolutions that are prohibitively expensive to model, and audio recordings of any kind are not admissible as evidence at all. Signatures on paper, faxes, etc are, of course, inadmissible, too.
- pmontra 2y agoThe point of a signature on paper is that (at least in my country) you can summon somebody in court and ask "is this your signature"? If they say it is, it is, even if it does not look much like any of their other signatures. Then there might be a suspect of false testimony or being blackmailed etc but that's not always the most important issue in a case. E.g.: if it is a contract and all the signers state that they agree with its terms, then there is no much else to discuss.
- thereddaikon 2y agoThere's already a process for this, its called chain of custody. If you cant prove the evidence has a solid chain of custody then it was potentially tampered with and isn't reliable.
- LPisGood 2y agoThis is unironically a usecase for blockchain.
- adiabatichottub 2y agoWho needs a whole blockchain? Just basic public-key cryptography would do the job. Imagine if you will, that the NVR (recording system) has a unique private key flashed in during manufacturing, with the corresponding public key printed on it's nameplate. The device can sign a video clip and its related meta-data before exporting. Now, any decent hacker could see possible holes in this system, but it could be made tamper-resistant enough that any non-expert wouldn't be able to fabricate a signed video. Then the evidence becomes the signed video and the NVR's serial number and public key. Not perfect, but probably good enough.
- hippari2 2y agoUnfortunately consumer devices often have weak cryptography built into them. The one properly implemented are just out of reach for average consumer.
- CMCDragonkai 2y agoMore than just a blockchain, you need a decentralized set of oracles to mutually corroborate information. https://polykey.com/blog/ai-detection-versus-cryptographic-provenance https://polykey.com/blog/ai-detection-versus-cryptographic-p...
- mrandish 2y agoYep, "chain of custody." Came here hoping to see that concept discussed since it's how the system already deals with cases of potential evidence tampering. If the evidence is of material importance and there's no sufficiently credible chain of custody, then its validity can be questioned. The concept started around purely physical evidence but applies to image, audio and video. The good thing about the ubiquity of deepfake memes on social media is that it familiarizes judges and juries with how easy it now is to create plausible fake media.
- AyyEye 2y ago> we're now at the point where even authentic recordings could be plausibly denied and claimed to be fake. We've been there for at least two years. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/judge-slams-tesla-for-claiming-musk-quotes-captured-on-video-may-be-deepfakes/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/judge-slams-tesl...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- EGreg 2y agoI kind of want to have an LLM which takes absolutely any criticism of AI or news of it doing something bad and then generates a plausible HN comment that basically goes "I don't think it's a new problem, X has always been possible, there's nothing really new"... because that comment always appears like clockwork beneath it :)
- dragonwriter 2y agoI mean, you are already getting the result for free, so why do you need an LLM for it? In any case, you can probably do this with a fairly simple prompt with any LLM.
- fhd2 2y agoStrangely, I'm not even offended by the notion that an AI can replace this work I apparently do :D Though my thought here was just pure optimism in the face of something bad, not an attempt to frame a bad side effect of something good as not a big deal. When it comes to generative AI, I personally don't see a lot of good applications, but a plethora of bad ones. The only solution I could imagine would be regulation to the degree that using or distributing models with certain capabilities is just illegal. Judging from the war on file sharing a few decades ago, probably very difficult to enforce, even if it is perhaps still worth doing. But I don't see any governments line up to do it. Given that, this particular (semi) new development that generative AI is effective for evidence tampering, I think we'll manage to deal with it.
- throwway120385 2y agoThe nuance that's usually missing is that new technology invariably enables the same things but more of them and faster.
- consteval 2y agoEveryone misses this all the time. Most problems can be overlooked because they’re not that prolific. There’s a chain of events that really hinges on that assumption. For example, piracy is really not a problem. In fact I’m pro-piracy most of the time. But if everyone could pirate with no thought and no down time, I don’t think our economy will survive. Just because something is okay in small doses doesn’t mean it scales well. We understand this intuitively with substances, but not with technology like LLMs.
- SoftTalker 2y agoHave you ever heard some of the wiretap or hidden microphone recordings used to convict mafia bosses back in the 1980s? It was so bad I can't believe it was accepted. It could easily have been faked. The only thing that made it work was the sworn statements of authenticity from the people who did the recording, and the chain of custody thereafter.
- qingcharles 2y agoI know a lawyer who was convicted on one of those. The detectives had the mic + transmitter taped to his groin so it would get through a pat down. Then the undercover just spoke both sides of the conversation (the defendant's side was whispered and muffled). Someone testified it sounded like the defendant. Conviction was overturned on appeal on a simpler issue unrelated to the evidence. In fact, I remember a drug dealer I was helping with his defense. Hidden mic on undercover was taped under his armpit. He arrived to defendant's hotel room for a deal and defendant made him undress. The recording is hilarious because defendant is like "You fucking snitch, what's that under your armpit?" and the undercover says "It's my .. er .. MP3 player?" LOL
- siva7 2y agoSo what happened to him?
- NoToP 2y agoI refer you to the precedent of Snitches v. Stitches
- qingcharles 2y agoLater affirmed by Snitches v. Ditches
- rickandmortyy 2y ago[dead]
- vasco 2y ago> But ultimately: Humanity has coped without photo, audio or video evidence for most of its existence. I suppose it will cope again. Same argument for electricity, the internet, sanitation, democracy... doesn't seem like a great test for stuff that we just didn't have it before and survived.
- fhd2 2y agoWell, I'm not arguing "good riddance". I just optimistically think we'll manage. I wouldn't want to miss any of the things you listed, actually. I'd also prefer evidence tampering to be impossible or at least very difficult. But that's not a call I can make. All I can decide about things out of my control, is how I think about it. And here I'm carefully optimistic.
- vasco 2y agoBut your argument for why we can live without audio or video evidence was that we lived like that before. All I'm saying is that's not a great argument. You can probably come up with other arguments and they might be perfectly valid.
- pixl97 2y agoI mean, technically, a lot of murders did get away with their crimes in the days before video evidence, so there is that.
- fhd2 2y agoFair point. I didn't mean it too sound that dismissive. I'd rather not live without electricity, but if something was happening that eliminated electricity, I'd probably say "we did it before, we can do it again", too. And yeah, I'd probably say it in that case, not post to HN, for technical reasons.
- rickandmortyy 2y ago[dead]
- RataNova 2y agoThat's a great point. The ability to undermine real evidence by claiming it's AI-generated could be just as (if not more) damaging than fake evidence itself
- pixl97 2y agoWell, and to generate fake evidence to lead cops off the trail for the longest period of time possible. Evidence could be said to contain a half life. The longer (real) evidence is not gathered the more it can decay in one way or another. For example security footage gets overwritten. Actual witness memory gets foggy. Physical items get thrown away. If the cops spend the first month going after some poor Mark that had nothing to do with it, by the time they realize they've been had it will likely be much more difficult to catch the actual perp. Also, that's saying nothing about the court of public opinion.
- RataNova 2y agoAnd given how quickly narratives form online, even if the truth eventually comes out, public opinion might not catch up
- trhway 2y ago>But ultimately: Humanity has coped without photo, audio or video evidence for most of its existence. which allowed to burn witches based on testimony of citizens in good standing. And that leads us to using Neuralink and similar tech and the next gen lie detectors (like say the defendant's fMRI (most probably interpreted by AI too:)) to look into the brain and extract confession. No need for evidence, deposition and all that expensive time consuming stuff standing in the way of truth especially given that it can't be trusted anymore in the face of AI capabilities.
- HPsquared 2y agoAt this stage it's more a risk for people who have their likeness out in the public domain where it can be copied. But that's just about everyone these days.
- kenjackson 2y ago> I don't think it's _that_ widespread. Just like it's possible to lie on the stand, but people usually think twice before they do it, because _if_ they are found to have lied, they're in trouble. I don't have data, but I suspect a LOT of people lie on the stand. This is mostly based on what I see on reality court shows and true crime type shows, so admittedly not a great sample, but I figure once something gets to trial things are going to be contentious.
- dghlsakjg 2y agoHow is AI voice faking any different than any other type of faking? How is it different than a manipulated recording, or a recording where someone is imitating another? It is just as easy to fake many paper documents, and we have accepted documents as evidence for centuries. Photos can be faked, video can be edited or faked, witnesses lie or misremember. Is this just about telling lawyers that unvetted audio recordings can be unreliable? Because that shouldn't be news. Edit: this is a good faith question. I'm legitimately just curious. Splicing and editing have been around since recording was invented, I was legitimately curious why voice recordings would have been given extra evidential weight when manipulating recordings is a known possibility.
- gdulli 2y ago"We've had projectile murder for centuries with arrows, how are these machine guns and missiles any different?"
- rout39574 2y agoPresuming good faith here, faking recordings has been harder to do, easier to detect, and less equivocal in the past than it is now. If it takes an FX house to generate a plausible recording of me saying something I didn't say, that's a risky enterprise with a lot of witnesses. If my enemy can do it in their basement with an hour of research, the exposure risk goes way down, and consequently the expectation you'll see it in real life goes way up.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 2y agoNuclear weapons require nation-state levels of resources. Now imagine you can build one in your basement for $10k. Does that change things at all?
- dghlsakjg 2y agoI understand what you are saying, but my point is that I could make plausible sounding recordings that did not reflect reality by, for example, cutting recordings up with freeware like Audacity, or even using a consumer level double tapedeck before that. It wasn't Manhattan project levels of effort before this. This seems more like people losing their minds over 3d printed guns, when hobbyists with a drill press have been making guns in the garage for decades. Yeah, its easier now to fake voice, but its not as if what this article warns against wasn't possible before the latest AI hype cycle. And it is also worth noting that voice cloning/changing technology is not particularly new either (I've been able to sound like Morgan Freeman using a phone app for at least half a decade). I agree that courts should be cautious around accepting voice recording evidence, I just don't think that the ability to do this is new.
- carra 2y agoWait some more time and photos or even video recordings will be deemed just as dangerous. And then what? Even if there is real evidence, it will have to be discarded unless it can't be sufficiently validated. It will get very hard to prove anything.
- paulnpace 2y agoIf it goes that direction, one silver lining could be that they also realize video conference tools used for court proceedings should also go away.
- bluGill 2y agoOr perhaps camera manufactures will start putting traces in. Anyone who makes surveillance systems (like stores use) should put some end to end things in so they can say "this camera took that recording and we can see that it wasn't tampered with by...". (if anyone works for a surveillance company please run with this!) With encryption we can verify a lot of things, but it sets the bar higher than someone took a picture. Of course in a darkroom someone skilled could always make a fake photo - but the bar is a lot lower with AI.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoCryptography doesn't really fix it. There are a zillion camera makers and all it takes is one of them to have poor security and leak the keys. Then the forger uses any of the cameras with extractable keys to sign their forgery. Or they just point a camera at a high resolution playback of a forged video. This also assumes you can trust all the camera makers, because by doing this you're implicitly giving them each authorization to produce forged videos. Recall that many of these companies are based in China.
- bluGill 2y agoThe point is the camera maker certifies in court under perjury penalty that their cameras are not compromised and that is their image. "Other camera systems are compromised, but ours is not...".
- nottorp 2y agoSo... those talking head "influencers" who leave multiple hours of voice and video samples on social networking for anyone to download and clone are the most at risk for an attack like this?
- lblume 2y agoNot necessarily. Recent advancements suggest that just a few soundbites of a typical person's voice already allow modern AI to synthesize it fairly accurately.
- treetalker 2y agoI question the wisdom of setting the judge up as a superjury / gatekeeper for this kind of situation. This seems like a reliability / weight of the evidence scenario, not a reliability / qualification of the witness scenario (as with an expert witness). Why would the judge be better qualified to determine whether the voice was authentic, as opposed to the witness? And why should the judge effectively determine the witness's credibility or ability to discern, when that's what juries are for? All that said, emulated voices do pose big problems for litigation.
- bluGill 2y agoI don't know what the latest is, but often judges are supposed to not allow "expert testimony" without checking that the person is an expert. However this is a really complex area. Judges don't want to be the one deciding a case, but not allowing some "expert" is in a way deciding the case.
- hiatus 2y agoIsn't it up to the opposing party, and not the judge, to impeach an expert?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ARandumGuy 2y agoIf it was solely up to the opposing party, then they'd strike down every single expert. The judge still is the ultimate decider on what evidence (including expert testimony) is admissible.
- SoftTalker 2y agoIt's the jury that ultimately decides whether the evidence is convincing, even if the judge allows it. The defense will try to cast doubt on the evidence when they make their arguments. This also reminds me of one of Norm Macdonald's bits. He says (very seriously) that if he were on a jury he would not convict someone on the basis of DNA evidence. "What do I know about DNA?" he says.
- exe34 2y agoOn a related note, why oh why does Lloyds Bank insist on grabbing my voice for login every time I call them? I have to keep saying "no, fcuk off!" a dozen times until it gives up.
- Lammy 2y agoIn the future this stuff will get so good that the public will beg to be surveilled at all times because it will be the only way to prove what you didn't do. You will learn to love Total Information Awareness. Consent status: manufactured :)
- nostrademons 2y agoIt could easily go the other way, where the public doesn't care what people think they did or didn't do and just does whatever they want, because they don't respect the state and believe the social contract has been broken. "Fuck justice, talk to my AR-15." There's ample evidence that this is already happening, eg. recent headlines about kids being radicalized at increasingly younger ages, groups like No Lives Matter that embrace violent nihilism, increased domestic terrorism, record high gun ownership across both sides of the political spectrum, authority figures that just do whatever they want and ignore any form of law or accountability, etc.
- bilbo0s 2y agoI don't know man? We're already at a place where most people don't care what other people think of them. Issue is, as long as the government has the big guns, what the government thinks of you will still matter in a major way. In such an environment, most people are going to choose to have some kind of way to prove to the government what they did and what they didn't do. Not because they care what other people think as you're implying, but rather because they very much care that the government not get the wrong idea about them. Because the government getting the wrong idea about you can be fatal.
- nostrademons 2y agoGovernment is based on the threat of the use of force, not the actual use of force. If you're a government that is regularly using force against a significant proportion of your citizens, you have problems, and probably will not remain the government for long. I suspect that we're saying the same thing but with reversed causality. Both of us agree that non-deterministic enforcement breaks down the incentives needed for pro-social behavior. You're saying that this will cause people to demand ways to improve the governments enforcement abilities. I'm saying that this will cause people to adapt their behavior to the new, lessened enforcement abilities. In defense of my point, I'd point out that changes to government are a coordination problem while adaptation of behavior is an individual-only response, and it is much easier to effect changes to your own behavior than it is to convince 300 million people to agree on a solution and implement it, particularly when the root problem is a lack of enforcement ability.
- tgv 2y agoI'll say it again, even though it is rather unpopular here: there has never been a need to develop these tools, nor one to make them easy to deploy, nor one to make them easy to use. Yet all this has happened, and now it may occur that someone is acquitted because AI generated media is so good, the evidence might be artificial. If that happens, and the suspect commits another crime, it's on the conscience of the people that contributed to this. You cannot create something and pretend its use has nothing to do with you. The tools aren't perfect yet, so it's not too late to stop. Stop the ridiculous image and audio generation tools before it's too late. Nothing of value is lost when these models are made private again, and research is simply halted.
- cootsnuck 2y agoIt actually is too late for that. For anyone unaware, the open source models are already more than sufficient enough for imitations and deepfakes. For better or worse there's no going back. Personally, I'd rather we all know this tech is out there and develop defense mechanisms rather than thinking hiding it away will prevent harm. The cyber security industry exists because of all the privacy and security issues posed by all the tech we already have had for the past several decades. I'm confident the same will happen for AI simply because it is a business opportunity and other businesses and institutions are already talking about these issues.
- bdangubic 2y agoYou cannot create something and pretend its use has nothing to do with you. has always worked with guns so it'll always work with anything else :) and guns will kill more people that AI-generated shit for foreseeable future
- recursive 2y agoHere's my plan. 1. Cryptographically hash each piece of media when it's recorded. 2. Submit the hash to a "trusted" authority. 3. It will add a timestamp and sign the result. 4. Now, as long as you keep the original, without re-compressing, and you trust the authority, you have some evidence that the media existed at a timestamp. On or before. This doesn't prove authenticity, but in many cases, establishing a timestamp would be enough. Forgeries probably wouldn't be created until later, after the shit hit the fan. Or maybe this doesn't work at all.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoThieves are planning an inside job. They forge the surveillance video ahead of time, do the theft and submit the forgery to be timestamped while it's happening. Also, a lot of surveillance systems are purposely kept offline to prevent them from being compromised, but your system doesn't allow that because they would need external connectivity to get signatures.
- lolc 2y agoSure when you're controlling the source, you can fake it. But requiring the fakes be prepared ahead of time locks the faker into one story that may be contradicted by other evidence.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoThat's pretty much what happens anyway. The police are going to come collect the footage as soon as the crime is reported and you can't change it after they do.
- Edman274 2y agoThis technique is known as an Ella Fitzgerald to those in the heisting industry, as popularized in the documentary Oceans 11.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
- tiahura 2y agoWhy can't objecting party ask to voir dire the witness and find out if they can distinguish between AI and real recordings?
- gortok 2y agoWhat shocks (and irritates!) me is that Charles Schwab keeps wanting me to set up voice ID. Why would I want to set up a voice ID for something that is now trivially spoofed?
- alamortsubite 2y agoWhen was the last time you encountered this? I remember getting nags up until around the end of last year, but not lately. I like to think they dropped the program because I expressed concerns about it to so many reps, but more likely I've just been dialing in on a different number.
- gortok 2y agoToday. I get an interstitial every time I log in that tries to get me to enable their VoiceID system (here's a screenshot): https://georgestocker.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/schwabvoiceid.png https://georgestocker.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/schwabv...
- alamortsubite 2y agoThat's crazy. Well, I guess I'll keep at them.
- MichaelDickens 2y agoSchwab used to have an 8 character maximum on passwords (although at least they changed that). They have never been a paragon of good security practices.
- SoftTalker 2y agoThey've presumably been good enough that their losses are less costly than better security.
- belter 2y agoTo avoid the scenarios like the one described in the court case, setup a family password or keyword. The bot will not know it.
- TeeMassive 2y agoI think we're going to see C2PA (https://c2pa.org/ https://c2pa.org/) being mandatory for cellphones. At least when there's at least one implementation and that all digital cameras has an integrated TPM.
- TriangleEdge 2y agoAI threatens all digital perceptions, not just voice. Images, videos, recordings, ... I think soon enough proving things in court beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is digital media will be difficult/impossible.
- PolieBotics 2y agoI've developed a novel approach to creating tamper-evident video via cryptographic feedback loops between projectors and cameras. The process works as follows: 1. A projector displays a challenge pattern (Perlin noise derived from of a hash) 2. A camera captures this projection 3. The system hashes the captured image concatenated with the previous hash and uses it to derive the next projection 4. This chain demonstrates true temporal sequentiality that's difficult to forge By incorporating random noise derived from Byzantine Fault Tolerant networks and using these networks as timestamping servers, the proofs inherit the network's decentralization properties. ML then confirms that the feature distributions in projection-photograph pairs match expected patterns from the training dataset. Demo video and GitHub repo available here: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliePals/comments/1j8qm2j/truth_beam_christmas_2024/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliePals/comments/1j8qm2j/truth_be...
- asddubs 2y agopretty clever, kind of like cipher block chaining
- PolieBotics 2y agoThank you! It is indeed a little like a signature based on proof-of-projection. As they say, once you have a signature, you have a most of a cryptosystem. I've been experimenting with those and other applications of non-linear functions in projector-camera systems. https://github.com/poliebotics/PolieBotics https://github.com/poliebotics/PolieBotics
- o11c 2y agoThere are actually (at least) 3 different places where cryptography is needed here: * Proof that this starts after a given time. Traditionally this has used methods like "this is the headline of a major newspaper today", which is limited to 1-day granularity and has problems if you can just generate a large number of expected headlines and use them in parallel. But with crypto, we can just query any random-number-timestamp-signing server, and a network of such servers can mutually sign each other's previous packets so it's very reliable both against downtime and against attacks. * Proof of sequencing. This is trivial with a chain of hashes, though it does prevent recompression. * Proof that this ends before a given time. This requires actively submitting your signature data to a timestamp server for additional signing, which is a much more complicated task than the initial half. It is still possible to eliminate the single source of vulnerability, but much more work. "Camera looks at monitor" is going to be a much cheaper way to make this air-gapped than adding a projector. And this doesn't strictly need to be continuous; most things are tolerant of one-day granularity and almost everything of 15-minute granularity.
- RataNova 2y agoThis is a pretty terrifying problem, especially considering how easily accessible AI voice cloning tech has become. The fact that courts still operate under rules written before AI-generated evidence was even a concept is concerning
- WalterBright 2y agoAdd to that AI generated photographs and video. BTW, I've always wondered about the validity of email evidence. Email is text on a computer. You can edit it to say whatever you want.
- michaelbuckbee 2y agoI'm aware of using DKIM signing records to prove that certain emails were actually sent through systems at certain times as there are headers that change based on them in the actual emails. Note: pretty sure I got the concept right and misused a few terms here.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y agoIt is true in a very general kind of way, but we no longer live in a world when one admin controls every aspect of company's IT ( with maybe exception of small mom and pop shops ). As a result, default controls in place have gotten a little more granular ( and annoying ). All that said, the evidence by itself is not as useful as the hired expert, who explains what the evidence is, how we know it is good and so on.
- mholt 2y agoIn a lawsuit in the early 2000s where my family member was the defendant, the plaintiff had forged emails. In the end, my family member won the lawsuit, so whatever they did, worked! I wish I could remember the details. I will have to go back and ask them how they did it.
- kragen 2y agoI'm interested to see whether they attempted to show that the email was forged. Are the filings in the case a matter of public record? Usually they are in countries like the US and UK.
- kragen 2y agoYou may be interested the decision in the COPA vs. Wright case https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/copa-v-wright/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/copa-v-wright/ where Craig Wright falsely claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto and forged many kinds of text on computers in order to support his baseless claims, including emails. The COPA's experts, among others, found lots of cases where he slipped up, and the court's decision and its appendix go into a great deal of detail about how those slipups were detected.