How will future security cameras defeat the inevitable "deepfake defense"
Even if fakes become indistinguishable from real footage, it'll still remain valuable. After all, there are plenty of forms of evidence we accept today that are even easier to fake.
Eg. we accept witness testimony, even though just lying is even easier than photoshopping. So I think we'll just see the same standards applied: we'll trust footage on the basis of things like whether you have a motive to frame those particular people etc. So it's still going to be stronger evidence than, say, just reporting that you saw them, since doctoring footage would require actual malice on your part, while you could have been mistaken if it was just your recollection. And it should also be noted that just being indistinguishable from a fake "from the pixels" doesn't make it impossible to distinguish in general: like all lies, you're opening up yourself to contradictions if there are other reliable pieces of evidence to compare with (eg. if the kids have an alibi, or if your footage differs from your neighbours in terms of things like expected shadows / ambient light etc for the same time, you could be caught out). Even if no such evidence happens to exist, you can't reliably know that in advance, and so the fact that you're implicitly opening yourself up to prosecution in turn should it be wrong makes your footage more credible.
There are also probably ways to improve this further should such claims become more prevalent. Eg. cameras handled by third party companies that archive the realtime footage and provide a documented and consistent chain of custody for the evidence: faking footage in such a system would require a lot more technical knowledge.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Even if fakes become indistinguishable from real footage, it'll still remain valuable. After all, there are plenty of forms of evidence we accept today that are even easier to fake.
Eg. we accept witness testimony, even though just lying is even easier than photoshopping. So I think we'll just see the same standards applied: we'll trust footage on the basis of things like whether you have a motive to frame those particular people etc. So it's still going to be stronger evidence than, say, just reporting that you saw them, since doctoring footage would require actual malice on your part, while you could have been mistaken if it was just your recollection. And it should also be noted that just being indistinguishable from a fake "from the pixels" doesn't make it impossible to distinguish in general: like all lies, you're opening up yourself to contradictions if there are other reliable pieces of evidence to compare with (eg. if the kids have an alibi, or if your footage differs from your neighbours in terms of things like expected shadows / ambient light etc for the same time, you could be caught out). Even if no such evidence happens to exist, you can't reliably know that in advance, and so the fact that you're implicitly opening yourself up to prosecution in turn should it be wrong makes your footage more credible.
There are also probably ways to improve this further should such claims become more prevalent. Eg. cameras handled by third party companies that archive the realtime footage and provide a documented and consistent chain of custody for the evidence: faking footage in such a system would require a lot more technical knowledge.
More options
Context Copy link