Download
the evidentiary impact of emerging voice editing software n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Evidentiary Impact of Emerging Voice Editing Software PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Evidentiary Impact of Emerging Voice Editing Software

The Evidentiary Impact of Emerging Voice Editing Software

163 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

The Evidentiary Impact of Emerging Voice Editing Software

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The Evidentiary Impact of Emerging Voice Editing Software

  2. Nick Mirra Woods Rogers, PLC nmirra@woodsrogers.com (540)-983-7681

  3. Introduction

  4. Why Voice Recordings Matter • Our voices uniquely identify us– it is a “vocal fingerprint.” • As a result, our words have become intertwined with our identity. • Voice recordings and identification have become essential to the legal process.

  5. The Evolution Of Technology • Evidence can be manipulated with more sophistication and in more ways than just a few years ago. • With advances in technology come new problems—problems that were not issues prior to the new invention. • New technology can both benefit and wreak havoc on the practice law.

  6. Law Must Weigh Technology • Courts must weigh whether new technologies will provide novel forms for evidence, threaten existing and well-established forms of evidence, or both. • This does not always happen quickly. • Reactive instead of proactive. • Example– when the Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted, the medium to capture voice recordings was analog tape recordings. Now voice recordings are digitized.

  7. Current Status Of The Law • Current laws that govern the admissibility of voice recordings are based on the assumption that juries are capable of assigning the weight of the evidence. • With new technologies, such as Adobe’s Project VoCo, juries would be unable to distinguish computer generated speech from a true recording of that actual specific person.

  8. The Essential Questions • How reliable is voice evidence? • How do the Federal Rules of Evidence prevent modified voice recordings from being authenticated as evidence? • How do the Federal Rules of Evidence need to be amended to account for emerging technologies that alter vocal recordings?

  9. Past Relevant Technologies

  10. Previous Relevant Technologies • Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1874 • The Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted in 1975, when the telephone was commonplace. • To use the content of a telephone conversation in legal proceedings, the earwitness testifying must be able to prove the specific person on the call by identifying their voice.

  11. Previous Relevant Technologies • The voice changer, or voice modulator, manipulates the human voice in real time to make it sound different, often by shifting pitches. • In United Stated v. Gilbert the defendant was convicted of making a telephone bomb threat. Even though the defendant used a voice changer, an expert was able to prove the defendant made the calls by reverse engineering the shift in pitch of the recorded bomb message.

  12. Previous Relevant Technologies • Photoshop, first introduced in the early 1990’s, allows a user to alter images, including photographic images. • Courts have grappled for many years about the manipulation of photographic images. • The law is still developing in this area.

  13. About Project VoCo

  14. Project VoCo • Project VoCo is a software that enables the user to make a computer read back anything the user types into it. • This is not mere text-to-speech conversion. • VoCo can read back the text using the voice of any person it has on file.

  15. How does VoCo work? • VoCo samples an audio file of the target speaking (10 minutes of speaking is sufficient). • VoCo then takes input typed into a computer and reads it back in the voice of the target. • Moreover, a VoCo user can manipulate each individual phoneme with a word to make the resulting speech even more authentic.

  16. A Quick Look (video courtesy of YouTube & Adobe)

  17. Legal Concerns – Project VoCo • Imagine when VoCo is used to make your client say something he or she has never said before. • How can you tell the difference between a VoCo recording and actual, authentic voice recordings?

  18. The Federal Rules of Evidence and VoCo

  19. FRE Are Ill-Prepared For VoCo • The Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted at a time when it was extremely difficult to manipulate a voice recording after it was recorded.

  20. Rule 901(b)(5) • Rule 901(b)(5) – an earwitness may testify to their opinion “identifying a person’s voice—whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording—based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.”

  21. Rule 104(b) • “When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later.” • The standard in this rule is the provision of evidence that could support a finding.

  22. Issues Related To Rule 901 And Voice Recordings • Scenario- • An earwitness testifies that a particular voice recording is indeed the voice of a specific individual. (FRE 901) • The jury has the responsibility of giving weight to this earwitness’s claim. (FRE 104) • How does the VoCo technology effect the weight of this earwitness’ testimony? • Can a sampled VoCo recording slip in as evidence? • Can a sampled VoCo recording be rebutted?

  23. An Immediate Concern • Currently the VoCo technology is not mainstream. • A VoCo recording could be used to blindside an opponent. • That opponent may struggle to sufficiently explain the “smoking-gun” voice recording. • Without awareness, the opponent may be unable to justify even to himself or herself the evidence. • Currently a jury will likely not hear evidence related to a manipulated voice recording. • Even if they do, can the evidence be properly weighed?

  24. Some Exemplary Court Decisions

  25. United States v. Dionisio • The Supreme Court held that “[n]o person can have a reasonable expectation that others will not know the sound of his voice, any more than he can reasonably expect that his face will be a mystery to the world.” • As a result of this case, courts can compel a defendant to provide a voice sample in a criminal context.

  26. Example • In a grand jury, the voice of a defendant is replicated using VoCo and made to admit a relevant subject. • The court compels a defendant voice sample. • The grand jury compares the voices, deems them to be similar, and indicts the defendant based on the falsified voice recording.

  27. United States v. Basey • Identification of the defendant by one individual was sufficient to establish that the defendant was the voice on a recording. • 9th Circuit holding – voice identification, witness testimony to use of an alias, and recorded telephone conversations were sufficient evidence to identify a defendant. • How does VoCo make this holding and this case problematic?

  28. Looking to Analagous Technologies: Photoshop

  29. Comparing Photoshop and VoCo • Photoshop enables the manipulation of photographs and other images in order to produce a wholly altered and convincing image. • VoCo can manipulate previous voice recordings of an individual, and then combine those voice recordings with a user generated typed text to create a new recording in the target individual’s voice. • Photoshop = visual; VoCo = audio. • In order to predict how VoCo will be addressed by courts, an analysis of how courts address Photoshop is insightful.

  30. Courts and Photoshop • Photographs must be (1) relevant and (2) authentic in order to be introduced as evidence. • Photoshop has made it nearly impossible to detect alterations to photographs. • Under the current rules, it is sufficient to prove authenticity and relevance of a photograph if a witness on the stand testifies that the photograph accurately depicts the scene as they saw it.

  31. Courts and Photoshop • In an effort to combat tampering, there is an emerging practice where digital photographs are authenticated and verified via metadata. • Photographic Metadata can include the author, date created, data of modification, and file statistics. • The metadata is “attached” to the digital photograph’s file. • Unfortunately, metadata can be readily altered by moderately technologically inclined actors.

  32. Courts and Photoshop • Illegal modifications to photographs are likely to fall under the veil of false declarations as enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1623. • The modifications to the photograph are being falsely represented as true. • Penalty – fine and up to five years of imprisonment. • Because photographic alteration techniques are so covert, the risk of detection could be substantially outweighed by the reward of victory at trial – just like VoCo.

  33. How Should Courts Handle Project VoCo?

  34. Courts and VoCo • The Federal Rules of Evidence must adapt. • Three possible solutions: • The law could remain exactly the same. • The law could require a metadata expert testify as to the validity and veracity of all native digital, or retroactively digitized, voice recordings in accord to the Daubert standard. • The law could adopt a threshold standard where expert testimony regarding metadata would be required after a triggering event.

  35. Option 1: If The Law Remains The Same • The Federal Rules of Evidence are not equipped to handle VoCo or similar emerging technologies.

  36. If Metadata Is Required For Every Piece Of Voice Evidence • The courts would become clogged. • The timeframe of litigation would increase significantly. • The cost of litigation would increase significantly. • Add another expert witness to the list.

  37. If A Threshold Standard Is Adopted • Rule 901 would still be the general rule that applies to voice evidence. • If the opponent of the evidence is able to demonstrate a plausibility of tampering with the evidence, an expert should be required. • At this point, a metadata expert would need to demonstrate that the voice recording has not tampered with or manipulated. • After the expert testimony, a jury should be able to more properly assess the weight of evidence.

  38. Conclusion

  39. Current Status • Under the current Federal Rules of Evidence, almost nothing prevents a voice recording created by VoCo as being introduced as authentic evidence.

  40. Next Steps • Practitioners must become aware the VoCo and similar technologies exists, are emerging, and are evolving to become even more realistic. • The Federal Rules of Evidence should be amended to account for the proliferation of such technology. • The FRE should adopt a threshold showing.

  41. The Essential Questions - Revisited • How reliable is voice evidence? • How do the Federal Rules of Evidence prevent modified voice recordings from being authenticated as evidence? • How do the Federal Rules of Evidence need to be amended to account for emerging technologies that alter vocal recordings?

  42. Citations • http://jolt.richmond.edu/files/2018/10/Mirra-FE.pdf

  43. Thank you! Questions?