> Weintraub also stated during the press conference that investigators determined that the vaping video had been manipulated after analyzing its “metadata,” a term which refers to embedded information in digital media that can reveal how and when it was last edited.
> But after contacting Reiss, the officer who investigated Spone, the Daily Dot learned that police never actually obtained the original vaping video. Instead, like what was seen on NBC News, police only had access to a cellphone recording taken by Spone of the vaping video being played on a separate device. Any metadata analysis would therefore fail to include information on the source video.
It appears the police are calling the video of the vaping a deepfake
The rising millennial generation is not ready for the chaos their progeny is about to unleash on the world.
what was a takeaway here regardless of the story being wrong, is that the damage deepfakes will cause might not be what self-proclaimed futurists predicted (e.g. rampant use of the technology as a means to subvert evidence) but the opposite: that people will counter justified allegations of evidence as being deepfakes. So not the technology is doing most of the damage but the hypothetical possibility that allows that these arguments now exist.
Imagine any Karen or Kyle now being presented with video evidence will soon scream "deepfake". And few have seen this coming because we were more absorbed with hypothetical (but less realistic) scenarios.
This is even more fascinating (and was the simpler answer yet most have missed it).
https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/postmodernism...
Currently we have reached peak character assasination. And you can ruin a life at this point because of one moment caught on tape.
Who cares if Karen or Kyle did x,y,z. Specially if it was intended to be private.
That's not the opposite, that is subverting evidence.
Also, please stop using ordinary names as slurs.
Nations state > Bigco > Smallco > Neckbeards > Karen
(skipping some steps but you catch the drift).
The metadata stuff the NSA was doing 20yr ago is what advertisers are doing today. SpaceX is doing stuff that was recently only the purview of nation states.
1. A cheerleader's mom anonymously texted some images and a video of a rival cheerleader to her coach. One of these images was a deepfake—a swimsuit photo off of Facebook edited to make the subject look nude. The other images and the video (of the girls drinking and smoking), were real.
2. The girl and her mom were charged with cyber harassment and harassment. The prosecutors weren't entirely clear on which of the photos + video were real and which were edited—the victim claimed they were all fake—but the whole thing was generally classed as harassment. Later, the police claimed that "metadata analysis" proved the video was fake.
3. ABC (among others, but ABC is mentioned in this article) ran a TV spot about this story, repeating the prosecutor's assertion that the video was manipulated
4. Twitter user @HenryAjder ("Deepfake expert"), among others, pointed out the error
5. The DailyDot published this article
This seems like a bit of a nothingburger? Any reason we're still talking about this? Nobody was "discrediting evidence", the videos & photos were only evidence to one thing—that someone sent them to her coach in order to get her kicked off the team. Whether they were real or not was immaterial to the harassment that occurred.