When synthetic speech becomes evidence: linguistic authentication and evidentiary uncertainty in Indonesian deepfake cases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67490/ijll.v1i2.919Keywords:
audio deepfake, evidentiary uncertainty, forensic linguistics, Indonesian legal discourse, synthetic speechAbstract
Background: Synthetic speech and audio deepfakes increasingly unsettle legal assumptions that a recorded voice can index speaker identity, communicative intention, and evidentiary presence in Indonesian digital-public discourse. Objective: This study examines how synthetic or disputed speech becomes evidentially meaningful by analysing the linguistic authentication, evidentiary uncertainty, and procedural positioning of deepfake-related public documents in Indonesia. Method: Using a qualitative corpus-assisted legal-linguistic design, this study analyses 24 publicly verifiable documents consisting of official enforcement releases, fact-checking records, news reports, legal-context documents, and scholarly sources. Results: The findings show that authentication is constructed through convergence among detector claims, source tracing, official-account verification, platform context, and institutional classification rather than through acoustic judgement alone. Evidentiary uncertainty is not treated as a defect to be removed, but as a structured stance expressed through probability, absence, methodological caution, and legal-contextual framing. Implication: Synthetic speech is procedurally positioned most often through public verification and fact-checking before it enters, or potentially enters, formal adjudicative settings. Novelty: This study offers a novel forensic-linguistic account of deepfake evidence by shifting analysis from technical detection toward the legal-discursive process through which synthetic speech is authenticated, contested, and made evidentially intelligible under uncertainty.
Downloads
References
[1] F. Abbas and A. Taeihagh, “Unmasking deepfakes: A systematic review of deepfake detection and generation techniques using artificial intelligence,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 252, p. 124260, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124260.
[2] Z. Khanjani, G. Watson, and V. P. Janeja, “Audio deepfakes: A survey,” Frontiers in Big Data, vol. 5, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fdata.2022.1001063.
[3] M. Li, Y. Ahmadiadli, and X.-P. Zhang, “A survey on speech deepfake detection,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 57, pp. 1–38, 2024, doi: 10.1145/3714458.
[4] S. Qureshi, A. Saeed, S. H. Almotiri, F. Ahmad, and M. A. Ghamdi, “Deepfake forensics: A survey of digital forensic methods for multimodal deepfake identification on social media,” PeerJ Computer Science, vol. 10, 2024, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.2037.
[5] A. Alali and G. Theodorakopoulos, “Partial fake speech attacks in the real world using deepfake audio,” Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, vol. 5, p. 6, 2025, doi: 10.3390/jcp5010006.
[6] T. Yang, C. Sun, S. Lyu, and P. Rose, “Forensic deepfake audio detection using segmental speech features,” Forensic Science International, vol. 379, p. 112768, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112768.
[7] M. Sandoval, M. De Almeida Vau, J. Solaas, and L. Rodrigues, “Threat of deepfakes to the criminal justice system: A systematic review,” Crime Science, vol. 13, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s40163-024-00239-1.
[8] C. Mallinson, V. Janeja, C. Evered, Z. Khanjani, L. Davis, N. Bhalli, and K. Nwosu, “A place for (socio)linguistics in audio deepfake detection and discernment: Opportunities for convergence and interdisciplinary collaboration,” Language and Linguistics Compass, vol. 18, 2024, doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12527.
[9] M. Ansori, “Speech act strategies in police interrogation transcripts: Evidence from bahasa Indonesia investigative records,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 51–60, 2026.
[10] W. B. M. Setiyawan, “Forensic linguistic evidence in Indonesian courtrooms: A study of language use in criminal verdicts,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2026.
[11] R. Agoestyowati, “Calibrated acoustic evidence: Legal and methodological advances in forensic voice comparison for Indonesia,” Lingua: Journal of Linguistics and Language, 2024, doi: 10.61978/lingua.v2i4.987.
[12] O. A. Shaaban, R. Yıldırım, and A. A. Alguttar, “Audio deepfake approaches,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 132652–132682, 2023, doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3333866.
[13] L. Pham, P. Lam, T. Nguyen, H. Tang, H. Nguyen, A. Schindler, and C. Vu, “A comprehensive survey with critical analysis for deepfake speech detection,” Computer Science Review, vol. 57, p. 100757, 2024, doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2409.15180.
[14] R. Mubarak, T. A. A. Alsboui, O. Alshaikh, I. Inuwa-Dutse, S. Khan, and S. Parkinson, “A survey on the detection and impacts of deepfakes in visual, audio, and textual formats,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 144497–144529, 2023, doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3344653.
[15] I. Amerini, M. Barni, S. Battiato, P. Bestagini, G. Boato, V. Bruni, et al., “Deepfake media forensics: Status and future challenges,” Journal of Imaging, vol. 11, 2025, doi: 10.3390/jimaging11030073.
[16] A. De Ruiter, “The distinct wrong of deepfakes,” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 34, pp. 1311–1332, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13347-021-00459-2.
[17] G. Hua, A. Teoh, and H. Zhang, “Towards end-to-end synthetic speech detection,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 28, pp. 1265–1269, 2021, doi: 10.1109/lsp.2021.3089437.
[18] A. Dixit, N. Kaur, and S. Kingra, “Review of audio deepfake detection techniques: Issues and prospects,” Expert Systems, vol. 40, 2023, doi: 10.1111/exsy.13322.
[19] A. Heidari, N. Navimipour, H. Dağ, and M. Unal, “Deepfake detection using deep learning methods: A systematic and comprehensive review,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 14, 2023, doi: 10.1002/widm.1520.
[20] Z. Almutairi and H. Elgibreen, “Detecting fake audio of Arabic speakers using self-supervised deep learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 72134–72147, 2023, doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3286864.
[21] N. M. Muller, P. Kawa, W. Choong, E. Casanova, E. Golge, T. Muller, et al., “MLAAD: The multi-language audio anti-spoofing dataset. In 2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (pp. 1–7),” IEEE, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10650962.
[22] B. Nguyen, S. Shi, R. Ofman, and T. Le, “What you read isn’t what you hear: Linguistic sensitivity in deepfake speech detection,” arXiv, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2505.17513.
[23] Sadani, “Linguistic construction of justice: A pragmatic analysis of judges’ reasoning in Indonesian constitutional court decisions,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31–40, 2026.
[24] D. Setiaji, “Legal language and power: A critical discourse analysis of anti-corruption laws in Indonesia,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13–21, 2026.
[25] T. Wang, X. Liao, K.-P. Chow, X. Lin, and Y. Wang, “Deepfake detection: A comprehensive survey from the reliability perspective,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 57, pp. 1–35, 2022, doi: 10.1145/3699710.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rika Yani (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License