41–50 of 128 posts
Outside of porn, I'm wondering if this could be used in other ways, e.g. government propaganda. Putting leaders in situations that make them look good or putting their opponents in compromising situations.
It not only can be, but it was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApG1XdI-Dd4 there were a few months when JA didn't give any sign and people on /r/wikileaks started asking if he's still alive, then this video was posted. It's fake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we’ll probably have to move to a model where any security footage or images that is used in court must be digitally signed at the hardware level, with a verification process similar to how CAs work now. Of course, this will still be tamperable, but tampering would have to be much more premeditated and sophisticated.
that is absolutely never going to be workable because you can just film another video being played back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that’s why the use and mandating everyone uses their real and verified identity everywhere on the web is needed. You can still comment and post whatever anonymously but it won’t hold any weight!
That doesn't really make sense in this context; if someone is pretending to be you using your own face and voice, using real identities is kind of the point, isn't it?
Either we instate an ID system or the web becomes a joke no one believes. The latter I guess wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that is absolutely never going to be workable because you can just film another video being played back.
I can imagine watermarking at the light sensor level. It would need some very special provisions for compression, though.
However, that's still interesting; isn't it possible that each light sensor has certain watermark-like characteristics arising from the manufacturing process?
What does self-completion mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plausible deniability doesn't really work in real life though. Very few people are going to give you, or anyone accused of an indiscretion, the benefit of the doubt on the basis that a video might have been faked with AI. That is much less plausible than someone cheating and getting caught. If you think anyone is going to accept that a video is fake, even if it is , then you're woefully naive.
As someone with a generally cynical/pessimistic outlook I too, like blunte , want to see something positive in this. Hopefully, since it can't be stopped, it becomes so routinely used against so many people that everyone stops caring any more if it's real or fake. It's sad that our attitudes (if not behaviour) towards sex are still so fucked up and judgemental thanks to thousands of years of religious/Victorian/purit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we’ll probably have to move to a model where any security footage or images that is used in court must be digitally signed at the hardware level, with a verification process similar to how CAs work now. Of course, this will still be tamperable, but tampering would have to be much more premeditated and sophisticated.
that is absolutely never going to be workable because you can just film another video being played back.
Separately, generating false images or videos for libel purposes would become more difficult; if a camera that has never been owned by a person is used to produce a signed video that is pornographic in nature, the authenticity of that video is immediately suspect. It would take a much more sophisticated attack to produce a mathematically convincing fake video.
This is what's being accomplished by one amateur with a little bit of hardware. Imagine what will happen when you have professional services (legal or otherwise) making altered videos of whoever or whatever you want. Want court evidence of your wife cheating? Fake grainy hidden camera video. Want to discredit a politician? Here he is picking up a male escort and using racial slurs. These sorts of things could be used…
The problem I see with tech like this is that it muddies the water for everyone. I find it very strange that technologies like the internet appear to have created a world with more ambiguity and less transparency than we've had before - mostly because people now can find support for any kind of belief online. Some people are either willing to learn or have learned how to get information from reputation based systems…
This is what's being accomplished by one amateur with a little bit of hardware. Imagine what will happen when you have professional services (legal or otherwise) making altered videos of whoever or whatever you want. Want court evidence of your wife cheating? Fake grainy hidden camera video. Want to discredit a politician? Here he is picking up a male escort and using racial slurs. These sorts of things could be used…
The problem I see with tech like this is that it muddies the water for everyone. I find it very strange that technologies like the internet appear to have created a world with more ambiguity and less transparency than we've had before - mostly because people now can find support for any kind of belief online. Some people are either willing to learn or have learned how to get information from reputation based systems…
You can go back and read stories from the 1950s which have these issues and more. There has never been a time where all individuals involved in a democracy have understood all the facts. Popular politics has always been driven by newspapers and special interest groups.
In my country, implementation of a certain policy has very clear correlation with a marked increase in suicide rates - the slow rollout of this specific policy across areas of the country provides an easy way to show this. Certain newspapers refuse to report on this - it doesn't match their ideology - after all, when pointed out, people holding this ideology will often point out that suicide is one's own decision and it's not the Government's problem.