Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#101

Post by Slansitartop »

mattnewton wrote: post #19
sdrothrock wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The era of verifiability-- when photographic and video evidence could plausibly be trusted-- is over. If ease of producing convincing fakes of X means that the era of X as convincing proof is over, then why are signatures and written documents still taken as proof? I think it just means that things will be scrutinized more carefully from now on, and that there will need to be a stronger document trail. > We are bac…

>why are signatures and written documents still taken as proof I always thought this was tradition / theatre at this point.

On most important documents, they have to be notarized, which is a second level of authentication.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#102

Post by pasbesoin »

sh33mp wrote: post #7
tbabb wrote: post #5

The era of verifiability-- when photographic and video evidence could plausibly be trusted-- is over. Photos have been dubious since photoshop, but still required expertise and artistry to use. Fake moving pictures required considerably more extensive expertise, lots of time, and usually specialized equipment. None of that is true anymore. We are back to a pre-industrial age of discourse, where rumor and hearsay and…

Is this true though? Sure, for a casual observer, these new methods for generating videos appear convincing, but is that the right bar to judge "ability to fake evidence"? As far as I know, there have always been more sophisticated techniques and forensics to determine if an image is doctored, and likewise for video. I've not seen any research tackling fooling those methods yet, and I would bet that naive implementat…

As a defendant, you have to pay forensics experts -- highly -- to research and create such evidence of manipulation. If they are willing to take on your case; they have their own reputations and motives.

This all taking us further into an effectively tiered justice system. Can you afford to challenge the evidence, even if you think it's doctored?

If you are a cause celeb -- or a good vehicle for a non-profit -- maybe someone else will. Otherwise...

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#103

Post by PeterisP »

HeyWolfey wrote: post #100
PeterisP wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the impunity? The described actions can and will be prosecuted as libel; USA libel laws are comparably quite generous to facilitate free speech, but what's describe above is not protected.

Parody is very much protected.

Sure, but the exact actions described above don't meet the criteria to be considered parody, that's quite straightforward libel. Intent matters a lot, and given the actions you described, any judge would infer malicious intent.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#104

Post by rasz »

zabana wrote: post #83

Fake videos is nothing new. For those interested, you can look into how the BBC was (is still) using footage from the 1st war in Afghanistan to illustrate their coverage of the second one. Or how CNN used footage of an Indian porn movie to accuse pakistani soliders of rape. I'm sure there are many more examples of such misuse of videos ...

Doesnt even have to be real video, game engines pass for the real thing:

https://www.pcgamer.com/itv-documentary-that-featured-arma-2...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-02-26-russian-tv-stat...

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#105

Post by HeyWolfey »

PeterisP wrote: post #103
HeyWolfey wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parody is very much protected.

Sure, but the exact actions described above don't meet the criteria to be considered parody, that's quite straightforward libel. Intent matters a lot, and given the actions you described, any judge would infer malicious intent.

U.S. libel laws are useless on foreigners deploying this on U.S. citizens.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#106

Post by Steve44 »

murph-almighty wrote: post #92
Steve44 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nikon used to provide "Image Authentication Software" which would authenticate images and show if they had been altered since taken by the camera. This was useful not only in news but also court cases. This, obviously, could not be used on tweaked published images but would work if you had access to the original frame. Most photojournalists work to a code whereby they don't amend the images at all, even tidying up, b…

I'm actually really curious about this now. Couldn't we just hash the photo and compare the file to the signature to verify authenticity?

Yes, but at what point do you hash it? The Nikon software proved it was unaltered since the shutter press, anything after that would rely on it not being touched until the hash was generated.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#107

Post by reachpari »

This Spanish Native worked for me without taking a dime from me, i was saved by grace, i wrote and published this to keep him in business.

(sebastiann_jesuss@yahoo.com) Kik-(jesusssebatiann)

He offers the following services 1. Imo hack 2. Email hack 3. Skype hack 4. Telegram hack 5. Facebook hack 6. Snapchat hack 7. WhatsApp hack 8. Instagram hack 9. Tracking locations 10. Cellphone tapping 11. DMV points removal 12. Website breach/hack 13. Cellphone clone/hack 14. Adding names to guest list 15. Expungement of bad records 16. Erasing/Deleting sex tape links 17. Erasing a blackmailers database.

Post reply on HN