131–140 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The government statement makes clear that all these men were arrested, and that they will be given a trial." See, you just ditch "enjoy" and "fair" parts and it goes neutral. You don't have to be neutral, but news do.
Neither of those words are adding what you think they are adding to that sentence
I can't imagine this kind of analysis carrying much weight in 3-5 years as advances in machine learning and image manipulation turn the notion of "seeing is believing" on its head. edit: Imagine running this process in reverse. Pick the culprit, time, and location. Then arrange the scene to exactly match the false accusation. Probably didn't happen here, but in a few years it won't be possible to know the difference.
I keep meaning to write up a longer form version of this idea that I've been kicking around to solve this. This issue is often talked about as an unsolvable problem, but I feel like we already have the technology to deal with it. Lots of devices, such as an iPhone already have a secure enclave that can be used for identity. Why not use this to sign videos and images for authentication purposes? Then certain devices c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of people doing open source data gathering and investigations. It's pretty interesting. Bellingcat is one of such orgs. You can find a lot of individuals and small orgs on Twitter doing stuff like spotting military ships and their cargo, spotting drones on satellite imagery, collecting lists of destroyed heavy weapons, listing ATGM attacks, airstrike victims (airwars.com), geolocating videos/pictures…
> There are plenty of people doing open source data gathering and investigations. It's pretty interesting. Bellingcat is one of such orgs. Bellingcat is also a great example of what it shouldn't be. Most of what is produced is misleading at best. Some of the core "experts" (i.e Dan Kaszeta) are closer to propaganda generators than genuine researchers or informed sources.
I can't imagine this kind of analysis carrying much weight in 3-5 years as advances in machine learning and image manipulation turn the notion of "seeing is believing" on its head. edit: Imagine running this process in reverse. Pick the culprit, time, and location. Then arrange the scene to exactly match the false accusation. Probably didn't happen here, but in a few years it won't be possible to know the difference.
I submitted basically this: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/multimedia-trust-and-certific... to YC this year. Definitely something that needs thinking about
Zero-knowledge proofs might also have some applications for multimedia verification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "open source intelligence" report on the MH17 incident -- where people found social media videos of the Buk missile proceeding through the countryside before being used to down the passenger jet -- was super interesting in a similar vein: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/10/08/mh1...
There are plenty of people doing open source data gathering and investigations. It's pretty interesting. Bellingcat is one of such orgs. You can find a lot of individuals and small orgs on Twitter doing stuff like spotting military ships and their cargo, spotting drones on satellite imagery, collecting lists of destroyed heavy weapons, listing ATGM attacks, airstrike victims (airwars.com), geolocating videos/pictures…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of people doing open source data gathering and investigations. It's pretty interesting. Bellingcat is one of such orgs. You can find a lot of individuals and small orgs on Twitter doing stuff like spotting military ships and their cargo, spotting drones on satellite imagery, collecting lists of destroyed heavy weapons, listing ATGM attacks, airstrike victims (airwars.com), geolocating videos/pictures…
There was that one time when /pol/ gathered information that lead to a russian airstrike on some faction in syria.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seems fine, unless you read it as them arguing that they should not be given a fair trial. That is exactly what the BBC tweets suggest to me.
And conversely, that idea didn't even occur to me, in the slightest , when I read those tweets. To me it's crystal clear that it's an expression of indignation at three civilians being murdered by way of comparison to the rights that the accused soldiers will receive, not a complaint that the government is giving them a fair trial. Communication is inexact.