51–60 of 128 posts
Quick preview: u/deepfakes, https://www.gfycat.com/UnsungTotalAmericancrow (NSFW). Very cool, it has a few problems with merging the face but the expression is very convincing. Obviously, it doesn't work very well for very different faces ( https://imgur.com/gallery/OpD3RXC SFW).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that is absolutely never going to be workable because you can just film another video being played back.
I mean, there are all kinds of ways to bound uncertainty. You’re right, you could film another camera, but that could be addressed separately. Digital signing would only prove that a video came directly from a particular camera’s sensors. To assert the veracity of a video, you’d then have to prove that particular camera was at the scene, and the light coming into the lens was authentic. Most court footage is incident…
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…
not from the government.
not from amateur videographers.
not even from a video you took yourself-- think of it from everyone else's perspective.
but people believe their eyes.
we are witnessing the capstone of the national security state's propaganda strategy for the next few decades... when in doubt, construct a false reality.
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.
Absolutely. I'd be surprised if the NSA and GCHQ who we know already try to use porn and sexual scandals to discredit politicians and other "targets", aren't already using this or at least deep into researching it for their operations. https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/07/11/lip-syncing-obama... http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25118156 https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/gchq-using-online...
celebfakes is the next Reddit hand grenade: the site has 'involuntary porn' as a category for reporting posts, yet simultaneously has a popular subreddit dedicated to involuntary porn.
Consistency has never been one of Reddit's management strengths. They seem to have embraced the reactionary model of moderating the site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think this is a fallacy. the olden days were way worse. to put in presepective Carrots improving vision is propaganda created by the british yet see how many people believed it. Humans inventing and accepting fake beliefs to comfort themselves was never a new thing. Governments gaslighting its own citizens is communist party 101. People always want to believe that yesterday was better and blame their problems on th…
Not exactly propaganda, more misdirection, maskirovka our Russian comrades call it
For the New Year's day, Hacker News gives you porn links.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can imagine watermarking at the light sensor level. It would need some very special provisions for compression, though.
Well, but then you'd have to trust the light sensor manufacturer to provide secure keys. Remember when the NSA hacked into Gemalto and had a chance to steal its SIM card keys? However, that's still interesting; isn't it possible that each light sensor has certain watermark-like characteristics arising from the manufacturing process?