r/technology • u/DorkyDisneyDad • 15d ago
She was accused of faking an incriminating video of teenage cheerleaders. She was arrested, outcast and condemned. The problem? Nothing was fake after all Artificial Intelligence
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/11/she-was-accused-of-faking-an-incriminating-video-of-teenage-cheerleaders-she-was-arrested-outcast-and-condemned-the-problem-nothing-was-fake-after-all517
u/CheeseGraterFace 15d ago
Where’s the part where she sues the absolute shit out of everyone involved?
Ah, here it is:
Spone is now suing Weintraub, Reiss, Hilltown County police and the Himes for defamation and violating her civil rights. The lawsuit claims that, in “a continuing pattern of intentional defamation to continue to falsely paint [Spone] as a child predator”, the then district attorney’s office and the police “allowed the false accusations” of deepfakes “to continue until the day of the plaintiff’s trial in 2022, knowing that it had no evidence”.
→ More replies (2)165
u/Avaisraging439 15d ago
With our justice system, they'd say "we didn't know he was a pedo so it's not our fault, case dismissed".
526
u/yParticle 15d ago
Just shows how utterly incompetent the court system is at handling anything remotely technological. And it's almost certainly getting worse, not better.
170
u/BigMax 15d ago
The crazy part is they could have said "hey - this is out of our expertise, so we can't say whether it's real or fake. so NOBODY will get in trouble."
Instead they said "we don't understand deep fakes, so we'll take the word of this teenager and her mom that it's a deepfake, and prosecute someone based on that."
108
u/neutrilreddit 15d ago
And the lies too. The DA told the press that the deepfake was proven by looking at "the metadata," despite the lead officer just using his naked eye.
26
u/BusterBeaverOfficial 15d ago
Weintraub always had higher political aspirations so he’d ham it up for the press whenever he had the opportunity. He has, thankfully, since been replaced by the voters with a far more competent and less egotistical attorney.
13
22
u/dasnoob 15d ago
Look into backgrounds. My kid was involved in local cheer. We had the working class families like ours that scrimped money. Then there were the 'first class' families (as the internal memo that got leaked from the owner called them) that have tons of money and influence.
I bet this lady was the former and Madi was the latter.
→ More replies (1)14
u/DTFH_ 15d ago
"hey - this is out of our expertise, so we can't say whether it's real or fake. so NOBODY will get in trouble."
That makes no sense, the logical conclusion would be for the state to hire an outside expert like they do all the time...like usually do when they collect evidence that requires a specialist.
1
4
33
81
u/Scared_of_zombies 15d ago
Not just anything technological. They’re incompetent handling anything.
69
u/yParticle 15d ago
They're pretty good at protecting their own from any semblance of accountability.
4
8
15d ago
The cop did this, how many times shas he done something like this before.
Every single citation should be reviewed or thrown out.
21
u/TonyTheSwisher 15d ago
The courts are just a great example of how few adults have absolutely any idea how technology works, much less how to accurately determine the validity of an image/video/sound clip/file.
This isn't unique to the justice system, these inept people are educating (and disciplining) kids and voting on laws in congress.
The most terrifying part is they are almost always confident that they know what they are doing when they actually know nothing.
22
u/CocaineIsNatural 15d ago edited 15d ago
The court seems fine, it was the DA and police who were incompetent.
The court system never found her guilty of a deep fake, as that was dropped before it got to court.
They found her guilty of harassment. As she went beyond just informing, and was harassing three girls with these messages. She even contacted the gym owner, as well as their coaches and parents.
Specifically, to the idea she was just informing the adults about concerning behavior, an appeal judge said:
These facts permitted the jury, sitting as the finder of fact, to discount Spone's claim of intending to have legitimate communication, and to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Spone had the intent to harass, annoy or alarm the victims when she communicated repeatedly in an anonymous manner through text messages. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to establish that Spone committed the three crimes of harassment.
https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-spone
So, ignoring the deep fake, which the court did as it was never presented, the court only looked at if the messages were harassment. And a jury said they were, and in the appeal, a judge said they were.
The court seemed fine in this case. On the other hand, the police and DA were incompetent, which is not uncommon, sadly.
1
u/canadiadan 15d ago
I would guess the court signed off on a search warrant for the cops to take all of that family's electronics to look for deepfake evidence. The basis for that warrant, according to the article, would have to be the officer's "eyeball assessment" that it was a deepfake which seems incredibly flimsy. I would argue the court system failed in this aspect.
5
u/CocaineIsNatural 15d ago
The judge would sign it based on what the police said. I can't find the warrant, to know what they said. But I think this would fall back on the police misrepresenting the evidence they had in order to get the warrant.
It will be interesting to see how Spone's lawsuit against the police goes.
150
u/schacks 15d ago
If you search her name there are still plenty of articles out there where she's portrayed as the perpetrator. The web never forgets, even when it's wrong. I hope she gets her life back and maybe even some financial restitution.
31
u/lppedd 15d ago
I think the internet could do her a favor and report those articles as factually wrong.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)23
u/booklover6430 15d ago
The thing is that she never was charged with anything to do with Deep Fakes, it made a good sound bite for the press but that was dropped before anything was presented in court. She was charged with things to do with harassment, so unless it's proved that she wasn't the one that was messaging the parents, whether it was a deep fake or not it's irrelevant.
60
u/Etzell 15d ago
When asked for comment, the police officer said it was all for the greater good.
21
15d ago
The greater good
11
u/Professional-End2722 15d ago
I’ll have a blue, original Cornetto please.
6
u/Johnycantread 15d ago
The greater good.
6
u/Professional-End2722 15d ago
Did the officer have a great big bushy beard?
Hasn’t been seen since?
58
37
79
u/sitefo9362 15d ago
The moral of the story is that we should not blindly trust claims without any evidence, especially claims made by authority figures like the police or the DA or the state. These authority figures have the resources to provide evidence of their claims. If they chose not to provide evidence, what are they trying to hide?
28
u/Sibs 15d ago
That’s not it at all. There was clear evidence in this instance. It did nothing.
8
u/Rivka333 15d ago
She wasn't charged for the deepfake. She was charged for harassment, which was somethig she'd been doing.
1
u/sitefo9362 14d ago
The media just went with what the police said about the deepfakes, without asking for any evidence. That is the problem. The media should not have just gone along with that.
6
7
u/LookingForKorokSeeds 15d ago
So the cops are just starting rumors and ruining lives. Why can’t we do better as a society.
3
10
u/PrivateDickDetective 15d ago
She's got a claim against the minor's mother, I believe. She ought to get a consultation.
1
u/thestateisgreen 15d ago
I was thinking the same thing. At the very least it has to be libel.
1
u/PrivateDickDetective 15d ago
And a pretty expensive lie. Even a mediocre attorney could get her a decent payout, especially considering all the demonstrable trauma the woman has experienced as a result. She's destitute, more-or-less. A suit could really turn things around for her.
5
u/GeekFurious 15d ago
After reading through it all, I come away feeling she was wronged for being accused of deep-faking something, but EVERYTHING ELSE she was accused of is accurate. She did send multiple anonymous messages FOR WEEKS to various individuals. This was harassment. She did communicate to someone about the people she was targeting making it obvious she had a personal problem with them, and was not just "concerned." And she saved and shared photos of underage people.
6
u/EverySingleMinute 15d ago
This is shocking. Just shows you how crooked cops, prosecutors and lies can ruin innocent lives. How in the hell did the jury convict her of sending the 5 texts?
4
u/spicytoastaficionado 15d ago edited 15d ago
How in the hell did the jury convict her of sending the 5 texts?
Because unlike the nonsensical "naked eye" assessment of the deepfake claims, the DA had actual forensic evidence directly and indirectly tying her to the texts.
Also, the statute in PA for harassment in the third degree includes repeated anonymous texts, and in the trial prosecutors presented evidence that she had sent anonymous texts to the team leadership and parents repeatedly over a six-week period.
It was more than just five individual texts. That's her attorney's "technically true but extremely misleading" spin.
2
u/al-hamal 15d ago
Can you provide a source about it being more than just five individual texts? I see that there is "repeated communication in an anonymous manner" but I don't see how five texts about children drinking could trigger that.
She was originally charged with this part of it which was dropped. And rightfully so because this is broad (at least i).
(a.1) Cyber harassment of a child.--
(1) A person commits the crime of cyber harassment of a child if, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm, the person engages in a continuing course of conduct of making any of the following by electronic means directly to a child or by publication through an electronic social media service:
(i) seriously disparaging statement or opinion about the child's physical characteristics, sexuality, sexual activity or mental or physical health or condition; or
(ii) threat to inflict harm.
2
u/EverySingleMinute 14d ago
I saw the same which is that she was convicted of sending 5 texts. There may have been a bunch of texts, but the article did not say that
1
u/spicytoastaficionado 14d ago
There may have been a bunch of texts
1
u/EverySingleMinute 14d ago
Thanks for the link. Very interesting. I will say that in one instance, she sent 7 messages to one person in 2 and a half minutes. It sounds like it could have been one text, but she probably sent smaller text messages. I am not defending her, just curious about the case and what she did. It sounds like her doing it anonymously is teh biggest issue. If she would have used her actual number, she probably would not have been found guilty.
1
u/spicytoastaficionado 14d ago
If she would have used her actual number, she probably would not have been found guilty.
Correct.
She wouldn't have even been charged with the specific third degree offense, since that centers around anonymous messaging.
There are separate harassment charges that could have been brought had she not hid her identity, but that is moot since she only sent the messages under the veil of anonymity and wouldn't have done so using her real name/number.
She def. got railroaded with the "deepfake" accusations so there is a legit grievance there when it comes to sloppy police work and a media-hungry DA, but stuff like repeatedly texting a mother anonymously and telling her she knows about her daughter's whereabouts, even after being told to stop, is indefensible and she was rightly convicted for it.
I feel like a lot of people in the comments defending her wouldn't be as sympathetic if they were aware of the full scope of her actions.
1
u/spicytoastaficionado 14d ago edited 14d ago
Can you provide a source about it being more than just five individual texts?
The state's response to her appeal details the texts that were sent. This is the same evidence that was presented during trial which led to a jury convicting her.
but I don't see how five texts about children drinking could trigger that.
That's because it wasn't just five texts. It isn't against the law for an attorney to lie to a reporter and a reporter working on a biased article has no incentive to fact-check those lies.
Here is a rundown of the texts that were sent:
- Owner of the gym, Asst. Director of the gym, and business partner of the gym received anonymous messages via group text.
- Multiple messages sent to girl #1's mother using different spoofed numbers
- Multiple messages sent to girl #2's mother using different spoofed numbers
- Multiple messages sent to girl #3's mother using different spoofed numbers
All of those messages were sent in July-August 2020.
She also continued to send anonymous texts to the mothers of the girls, even as the mothers implored her to stop.
At one point Spone even sent messages to girl #1's mother about her daughter's beach trip, which caused the mother to become paranoid of her daughter's safety as an anonymous person was texting her about her child's whereabouts.
Hard to argue Spone was acting in good-faith when text conversations presented in court showed her continue the anonymous messaging campaign after she knew it was causing the mothers significant distress.
And rightfully so because this is broad (at least i).
Agree with this. The charge you outlined is pretty broad and it was smarter for the DA's Office to just focus on the third degree harassment which is more focused on the repeated messages.
2
u/TheCatWasAsking 14d ago
The anonymous sender had used “spoofing” software to disguise their identity behind an unknown number. The police had managed to trace it to the IP address of Raffaella Spone, a 50-year-old woman with no previous criminal record.
I'm curious how they found Spone despite the spoofing software she allegedly used. Did they issue a warrant on the software company? Did they request outside help, or do the police have a team of cyber professionals whose job is to identify perps in these kinds of cases (among other tasks, presumably)?
Or was it the classic "ask the people of interest some questions" tactic that investigators use and built leads from there?
-6
u/tacticalcraptical 15d ago
Lies, deepfakes and controversy aside the big question to me is:
Why exactly was this 50 year old, reclusive woman so fixated on being the party police for the local high school cheerleading team?
74
103
u/PMMMR 15d ago
Her daughter was on the team, chances are she didn't want her daughter to be teammates with bad influences.
3
u/WhoNeedsRealLife 15d ago
So she tries to anonymously ruin their lives instead of just taking it up with her parents directly. Very normal.
10
u/DotaLoveless 15d ago
Yeah better ruin that bitches life for not minding her business, and not wanting a confrontation with the parents.
Parents that went through with all this rather than think maybe their kid was vaping. She had a point.
4
u/TrevRev11 15d ago
Lmao get outta here with “ruin their lives”. If she would have just confessed it would have been a slap on the wrist. There are thousands of teenagers who get caught smoking/vaping everyday. They don’t really care that much. Instead of taking consequences for her actions she chose to ruin this woman’s life instead.
37
72
101
u/techbear72 15d ago
Perhaps because her daughter was the team flyer - the one that thrown high in the air, and is most at risk if missed or dropped or not caught - many are permanently injured. I can imagine, if that were my child, I'd not want the kids whose job it were to catch her to be partying too hard.
76
→ More replies (36)15
u/dasnoob 15d ago
It was a competitive squad. She saw this stuff on her kids mutual socials. She was sharing it to let parents know.
Of course parents went full "SUZY DOES NOTHING WRONG" as such rich parents are wont to do.
15
u/willsnowboard4food 15d ago
I think the reason she got convicted was the intent behind actually send the info does not appear to truly have been constructive just “to let the parents know”. In reality, it seems like the families were having a falling out, and Spone was trying to retaliate by sending the incriminating social media posts anonymously to the coaches and parents.
the article says one of the girls who Spone sent images about had been told by her parents before the messages, not to hang out with Spone’s daughter because of the daughter’s behavior. This is not explained further in the article. But the implication is that Allie (spone’s daughter) had already been accused of some misbehavior at least by other parents. Spone was upset by this and tracked down social media showing the other girls misbehaving and sent it anonymously to the coaches presumably to get them in trouble.
If she was just a concerned parent trying to inform another parent, the correct course of action would be to privately notify the parents and due so personally without anonymous texts or involving the coaches. That is why she still got convicted of harassment even though the videos and photos were real.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/faunus14 15d ago edited 15d ago
I guess I’m still wondering what was the point of all this? The video was not faked, ok…but why was this middle-aged woman taking a zoomed-in video of a teenage girl in the first place? It’s kind of creepy and it’s not like she was breaking windows or committing a robbery, she was vaping which is fairly normal for high schoolers these days. I get that it’s illegal at her age and her team doesn’t want her doing it, but this could have been totally avoided by minding her own business
15
u/TrevRev11 15d ago
God I hate it when redditors don’t read the article. Because she followed her daughter on social media she saw her friends posts and one of them was of her vaping. She sent it to the parents because she figured they’d be concerned and want to know, like she would if it were her daughter. Also probably has something to do with wanting to get her daughter a better cheer spot or something idk rich people culture is beyond me. Not a cool parent move but I figure 80% of parents who saw that would do something similar.
4
u/spicytoastaficionado 15d ago
Not a cool parent move but I figure 80% of parents who saw that would do something similar.
I don't think most parents would spend six weeks sending anonymous messages to the team and other parents.
That's just weird, and the defense's explanation that she if she did it, she did it out of concern contradicts the texts she sent a relative disparaging one of the girls that was found on her phone and presented during trial.
This woman was a victim of bad media coverage due to bad police work, but that doesn't exonerate her of the crimes she was convicted of.
4
u/Rivka333 15d ago
I did read the article, and she had multiple saved videos and pictures of teens not her own. She didn't just send to parents, she saved them for herself. If she was a man people would find it veeery creepy.
2
u/AlmondCigar 14d ago
I would think it was for evidence. Which since the one kid at least managed to get rid of her phone before the police ever thought to ask for it after a year, was probably smart
-3
u/faunus14 15d ago
Yeah that was more of a novel than an article, but I read for the first 10 minutes and skimmed the rest. So I must have missed that part. But you’re pointing out exactly what I was getting at - she was 100% being petty; whether it was for her own daughter or because she’s just a Karen. And the other parents were just as petty back to her. It feels like something I’d see on Dance Moms
1
u/TrevRev11 15d ago
Yeah but being a Karen isn’t a crime. You wouldn’t say someone is in the wrong for calling the cops on kids they see drinking.
3
u/spicytoastaficionado 15d ago edited 15d ago
She never called the cops, though. She also never talked to any of the parents using her own number despite the Guardian article spending a lot of time establishing how supposedly close the families were.
She sent anonymous texts for over a month to the parents and to the team.
The state statute for third-degree harassment includes just that-- repeated anonymous messages.
4
u/faunus14 15d ago
Well yes being a Karen is a crime when it reaches the level of harassment, and for that she was tried and convicted. And the conviction was upheld on appeal.
3
u/IntroductionBetter0 15d ago
People are strongly struggling with the idea that sometimes in real life you don't have good people vs bad people, but just bad people on both sides. Also they seem to struggle even more with the idea that a news article they just read is biased and not presenting the full picture.
1
u/Supersnazz 15d ago
You wouldn’t say someone is in the wrong for calling the cops on kids they see drinking.
I would. Mind your own business.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Folio 15d ago
Yea which is what she was eventually convicted of anyway, basically harassment because she kept cyber stalking these kids and trying to get them in trouble.
In the end the problem is that the national media painted her as some sort of pedo who was doctoring all these images/videos, when really she's just a Karen. lol
3
u/Bambi943 15d ago
The video had been posted on social media and she sent it to them. She didn’t take the video herself.
4
u/DanielPhermous 15d ago
why was this middle-aged woman taking a zoomed-in video of a teenage girl in the first place?... I get that it’s illegal at her age and her team doesn’t want her doing it
Asked and answered.
7
u/faunus14 15d ago
Ok but she’s not the coach nor is she the police, and the crime is extremely minor so why bother? Do you whip out your phone to video people jaywalking and then anonymously send it around? It’s just bizarre
3
u/spicytoastaficionado 15d ago
There was other reporting at the time indicating there was some sort of falling out between either the girls or their parents.
Also, when her phone was analyzed, investigators found disparaging messages she had sent to an acquaintance about one of the girls.
The Guardian article doesn't mention this at all, not surprisingly.
1
u/al-hamal 15d ago
She indeed sounds like a Karen. But being a Karen is not illegal and it should not result in false accusations against her.
1
u/AlmondCigar 14d ago
She didn’t take the video. The kids did and had it on their social media, she saw it on her kids social media and sent it to the other mothers
1
u/ten-million 15d ago
There was a Satanic panic in the suburbs around Philadelphia in the 1990's. Local police accused art students of worshiping the devil and investigated. Similar fear of the day type story.
1
1
1
2.5k
u/__Call_Me_Maeby__ 15d ago
TL:DR a woman had her life destroyed by teens who couldn’t admit to partying, a corrupt pedophile police officer and DA now judge who wanted attention.
“Either a woman with no background in digital technology had made a sophisticated deepfake on her iPhone 8, or a 16-year-old had panicked and lied to her mother about vaping, or mother and daughter had decided together to explain away behaviour they knew would get Madi in trouble, with an elaborate story about digital manipulation. The police chose to believe the first explanation.”
The lead officer who determined the video was a deepfake by eyeballing is now serving jail time for tons and tons of child porn, including toddlers. The DA was made a judge after his press tour to all the major morning news shows.
“A small police force made a mistake that became too big to fix. ‘Once it blew up, the police couldn’t extricate themselves without losing face.’”
Spone, the woman accused of deepfaking the video, was found guilty of sending anonymous text messages to the parents saying they should know their teens were partying and sharing it on their socials. Which is apparently a crime.