Lawyers for Kyle Rittenhouse say zooming in on an iPad fundamentally alters a digital image

by -
One of Rittenhouse’s attorneys, Mark Richards, argued against zooming in on a video, saying Apple’s AI generates “what it believes is there, not what actually is there.” Photo:¬†Pool¬†(Getty Images) – Pinch-to-zoom employs AI, according to the attorney, to produce “what it believes is there, not what is there,”. Is it possible that digital photographs are the result of a computer program? Are files fundamentally changed by zooming? The case of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 18-year-old who is on trial for shooting and killing two people and wounding another at a rally in Kenosha, Wisconsin, this week raised some surprising, and at times inelegant, questions.

Mark Richards, one of Rittenhouse’s attorneys, objected to the prosecution’s use of an iPad’s pinch-to-zoom feature when displaying a video of Rittenhouse shooting one of the victims. By using “artificial intelligence” in its zooming process, Apple will corrupt the original version by “producing what it believes is there, not what inevitably is there,” Richards said.

The artificial intelligence in iPads, which are developed by Apple, enables objects to be seen in three dimensions and logarithmically, explains Richards. To generate what people feel is happening, it employs artificial intelligence or logarithms.” (I assume Richards meant algorithm here by “logarithm,” but we’ll ignore that for the time being.)

Before we get into the details, let’s take a look back at when Apple originally introduced pinch-to-zoom on its phones. When expanding a digital photo, image interpolation is typically used to increase the resolution. If you zoom in on a raster image, all you’re doing is enlarging the existing pixels, and this isn’t what the defense claims. Gizmodo has contacted Apple for clarification on the assertion that “AI” is employed in the pinch-to-zoom process, but hasn’t received a response.

By pointing out that zooming in on photographs and videos is a widespread activity that juries are likely to comprehend, the prosecution maintained that zooming in on images didn’t harm their “purity,” according to The New York Times.

Judge Bruce Schroeder agreed with Rittenhouse’s lawyer’s claim that the photograph was in its “virgin condition,” according to the New York Times.

According to the court, the prosecution was on the hook for proving that the photograph wasn’t modified and had just around 20 minutes to locate an expert. Instead of showing the non-zoomed image on an iPad, the prosecution forced the jury to squint at what seemed to be a Windows PC hooked up to a display since they couldn’t locate somebody certified in such a short length of time.

However, even if the question of whether or not a court might utilize zoomed-in photographs appears to be an enormous jump, the Rittenhouse case may give a glimpse of what’s to come if deepfakes continue to grow. While some deepfake films are already amazing, it’s just a matter of time until they get even better, raising questions about the veracity of digital pictures and necessitating further forensic investigation.

Retribution porn and political satire employing machine learning algorithms is illegal in several areas, including California, Virginia, and Texas, although the legal precedents around this notion as a whole are still relatively new.

According to research published by cybersecurity startup Deeptrace, there were 14,698 deepfake movies online in 2019, an increase from 7,964 the year before. Whatever the real number is, it’s safe to assume it will grow in the coming years as applications make the technology more accessible to the general public. As long as there is no consensus on how to identify and validate the authenticity of a picture or video, Richards’ reasoning might be used to deepfakes in the not-too-distant future.