I agree with the article that it's a difficult problem to solve and there's potentially a number of solutions that need to be invented to help solve this problem but the one thing that I didn't see in here is increasing the penalties for perjury. Because when you're submitting evidence to a court you were a testing to the fact that you believe this to be an accurate representation of whatever it's supposed to be and a deep fake is not that.
How do you stop someone testifying from tricking juries? That is done by the threat of perjury. So while we may need some tools for deep fakes the threat of perjury should also be quite severe for submitting evidence you know his false or should reasonably know is false.
How do we stop BS-spewing "bite mark analysis" experts, and malicious FBI crime lab "results", and habitually mendacious law officers, and ballistic testing experts, and a thousand other sorts of sounds-good BS from tricking juries?
There's really nothing new here. Though many parties would prefer to pretend that our "justice" system's age-old and systematic problems didn't exist.
How do you stop someone testifying from tricking juries? That is done by the threat of perjury. So while we may need some tools for deep fakes the threat of perjury should also be quite severe for submitting evidence you know his false or should reasonably know is false.
reply