A hot potato: The defense attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse has claimed that Apple uses "artificial intelligence" to manipulate footage when users pinch-to-zoom on iPads. The judge in the trial said it was up to the prosecution to prove this is untrue.
Rittenhouse is currently on trial for shooting and killing two demonstrators and injuring a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25 last year. He has been charged with homicide, attempted homicide, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. Rittenhouse and his lawyers argue he acted in self-defense.
In a cross-examination yesterday, Rittenhouse's lawyer, Mark Richards, objected to assistant district attorney Thomas Binger's plan to present footage showing the teen shooting Joseph Rosenbaum. The reason? Binger was going to use the iPad's pinch-to-zoom feature.
"iPads, which are made by Apple, have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three dimensions and logarithms," Richards said, also showing he doesn't know the difference between logarithms and algorithms. "And it uses artificial intelligence, or their logarithms, to create what they believe is happening. So this isn't actually enhanced video; this is Apple's iPad programming creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there."
Binger responded by noting that pretty much everyone understands what pinch-to-zoom entails and that the feature doesn't alter the image in the way Richards alleged.
Judge Schroeder said that it would be “high risk” to show the video in court without first disproving the claims from the defense. Therefore, the onus was on the prosecution to prove that Apple doesn't manipulate images when pinch-to-zoom is used. He also dismissed comparisons between pinch-to-zoom and using a magnifying glass. “I don’t believe that,” the judge said.
Judge Schroeder demanded the prosecution bring in an expert to testify but didn't allow them to adjourn to find someone before Rittenhouse was cross-examined. The judge also suggested prosecutors find an expert during a 20-minute recess, but it appears nobody could be found or get to the trial in that time.
The jury eventually watched footage of the incident on a Windows device connected to a large TV. There was no zooming, and the images didn't fill the entire screen.
Funandgeeky on November 11st, 2021 at 17:00 UTC »
Wait, does this mean that all the times they shouted "Enhance!" on every crime show, that could have made the evidence inadmissible?
That started out as a joke, but I'm actually seriously asking. Because digital enhancements do add data to evidence, and the right enhancements could manufacture evidence. I remember a ridiculous CSI (maybe?) episode where they took a security camera image and "enhanced" it until they got a reflection from the person's eyeball. That would absolutely not be admissible.
I'm curious about the legal ramifications of this.
Evilsj on November 11st, 2021 at 16:01 UTC »
This trial has become an absolute three ring circus holy shit.
EndoShota on November 11st, 2021 at 14:28 UTC »
Hopefully that was sufficient.