Extract from Scott Schlegel’s article “The Deepfake Dilemma: Navigating the Uncharted Waters of Voice Cloning in the Legal System”
In the ever-evolving landscape of legal technology, the emergence of voice cloning as a tool for creating deepfakes is one that unnerves me more than any other. This isn’t just a fringe concern; it threatens the very integrity of our justice system.
Imagine, if you will, a courtroom scenario that’s all too familiar: an allegation of harassing phone calls. These calls often lead to significant legal consequences, such as the issuance of a protective order or an order that modifies child custody. But what happens when the authenticity of these calls is called into question? The prospect that these calls could be the product of voice cloning technology is not just theoretical; it’s a looming reality. The question then becomes: how can a judge, like me, distinguish a genuine threat from a cunningly crafted deepfake?
The implications are staggering, and they extend far beyond the realm of criminal cases. In the emotionally charged arena of domestic trials, particularly in contentious divorce proceedings, the potential for abuse of voice cloning is immense. Parties could fabricate evidence by cloning a spouse’s voice, or even that of an alleged lover, spinning intricate and convincing narratives of infidelity and betrayal. These false narratives could unfairly sway judicial decisions, causing irreversible harm.
Addressing this challenge is far from straightforward. While subpoenaing phone records might initially seem like a viable solution to challenge the credibility of such evidence, the technical sophistication of today’s deepfakes could render this approach obsolete. We may find ourselves increasingly reliant on expert testimony to verify the authenticity of voice recordings, adding a burdensome layer of cost and complexity to legal proceedings.
