Hacker News Reader

Comment by tandymodel100 | Hacker News Reader

No, not really

Yes, yes really. When real resolution is being substituted with the best guess of a completely closed source image processor, the court should be made aware of it.

This sounds like a weird rationalization for an absurd case of technical ignorance. Like when people defended nuking hurricanes or using UV lights as a Covid therapy.

Fact is, you have no idea what kind of unsolicited postprocessing the camera in the Rittenhouse trial might or might not have performed, and neither did the court.

It's a huge potential problem, and getting worse by the day.

Agreed as we've been living in the era of deep fakes for a while. I shudder to think how computational photography can advance to such a degree to blur the context to any unsuspecting user, whether accidental or intentional.

Except, specifically to the Rittenhouse trial, it was about playback processing NOT capture time processing.

Capture time processing is also verifiable with regards to what stack a particular device uses with the use of metadata, and as such has little in the way of extra problems over other potential doctored evidence which have been possible for years without smart phone devices.

Do we question what color film would portray an image for example? Is a particular lensing affecting the truth of an image? A specific crop? There's no such thing as a perfectly true photo or video.

It's perfectly reasonable to ask what image processing is done to get an enhanced image.

If a camera can replace a head with a leaf nothing taken with that camera can be trusted, especially in court, ever. Any changes to photos or videos should be avoided. This is the norm in court cases. You should read a proper article about it instead of the click baity ones.

This aged poorly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750660

No it didn't. The point still stands that AI enhanced images have a credibility and admissibility problem. This one example turning out to not have been altered in the way we thought it was by the enhancer doesn't invalidate the broader questions brought forth by the discussion.

Both sides have a right to question evidence.

Defending the suitability of evidence is the duty of re council who introduced it.

The prosecution couldn't explain how the iPhone zooms and it was on them to do so.

Btw, the prosecution later on were caught tampering with evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com