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

Ctrl Shift Face: A growing ‘deepfakes’ YouTube channel

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 128 posts

Re: Ctrl Shift Face: A growing ‘deepfakes’ YouTube channel

#31

Post by gambler »

anbop wrote: post #28
gambler wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not thinking this through. The problem isn't that creators can make fake videos (which would be analogous to DRM). Let them. There is no harm in it. The problem is that users have no way of verifying true videos. This can be solved with cryptography, because both parties involved (creators and viewers) would want this to work. In other words, DRM is about forcing everyone to do a thing. Verification is about a…

Play deepfake on a TV, point signed camera at it.

Have you ever tried this? The quality will be awful.

As far as I'm concerned, the need to use a real camera to capture real light is sufficient to thwart creation of truly convincing fakes.

Re: Ctrl Shift Face: A growing ‘deepfakes’ YouTube channel

#32

Post by atonalfreerider »

saagarjha wrote: post #21
ice_nine wrote: post #20

Articles like these make me eager for advances made in the 'authenticity' market. I recently learned of a company called Truepic[0] that specializes in photo and video verification. From the New Yorker article I read: "Truepic, a startup in San Diego, aims at producing a new kind of photograph—a verifiable digital original. Photographs taken with its smartphone app are uploaded to its servers, where they enter a kind…

How does Truepic work? What's stopping me from spoofing sensor data on my client?

The point is to have an immutable source to compare against. If you suspect a video is faked, you can find the verified original video that was used to make the fake and compare against it.

Re: Ctrl Shift Face: A growing ‘deepfakes’ YouTube channel

#34

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #26
_red wrote: post #8

I would imagine that in the future video encoders will start to automatically include a cryptographic signature every X frames, which then players will become aware of and show an indicator for "original / modified" content.

Yep, this might make Intel-style rootkit+DRM legally mandatory... welcome to 1984 ! :(

We've been through this whole argument before when HDCP was first proposed. I'd imagine this following exactly the same path.

Re: Ctrl Shift Face: A growing ‘deepfakes’ YouTube channel

#35

Post by neuronexmachina »

anbop wrote: post #28
gambler wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not thinking this through. The problem isn't that creators can make fake videos (which would be analogous to DRM). Let them. There is no harm in it. The problem is that users have no way of verifying true videos. This can be solved with cryptography, because both parties involved (creators and viewers) would want this to work. In other words, DRM is about forcing everyone to do a thing. Verification is about a…

Play deepfake on a TV, point signed camera at it.

I think the point of cryptographic signing wouldn't be verifying that it was recorded with a camera, but that it was recorded with a specific camera.

Re: Ctrl Shift Face: A growing ‘deepfakes’ YouTube channel

#36

Post by gambler »

The scare over this is overblown.

1. If the image quality is good and if you pause the video, the artifacts are pretty obvious.

2. Making meme videos is not a problem. You have to think about serious scenarios and ask yourself whether they were impossible before. In a lot of cases they were possible before without using AI. People edited interviews and staged recorded events since forever.

Re: Ctrl Shift Face: A growing ‘deepfakes’ YouTube channel

#37

Post by BlueTemplar »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #34
BlueTemplar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, this might make Intel-style rootkit+DRM legally mandatory... welcome to 1984 ! :(

We've been through this whole argument before when HDCP was first proposed. I'd imagine this following exactly the same path.

Well, the stakes are much higher now. See how Facebook got roped into having to do moderation !

Re: Ctrl Shift Face: A growing ‘deepfakes’ YouTube channel

#38

Post by [deleted] »

gambler wrote: post #22
buildzr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be too easy to fake, just replace the sensor in an approved camera with your own data feed. And that's assuming it wouldn't be somewhat trivial to dump keys from one or more cameras on the market to create a an easy tool or resignvideo.com... which is a massive assumption. As the movie industry has already seen, cryptography doesn't help you when you push out the keys to everyone. It'd be about as effective as D…

You're not thinking this through. The problem isn't that creators can make fake videos (which would be analogous to DRM). Let them. There is no harm in it. The problem is that users have no way of verifying true videos. This can be solved with cryptography, because both parties involved (creators and viewers) would want this to work. In other words, DRM is about forcing everyone to do a thing. Verification is about a…

[deleted]

Re: Ctrl Shift Face: A growing ‘deepfakes’ YouTube channel

#39

Post by euparkeria »

_red wrote: post #8

I would imagine that in the future video encoders will start to automatically include a cryptographic signature every X frames, which then players will become aware of and show an indicator for "original / modified" content.

A blockchain could be used to solve this problem.

Re: Ctrl Shift Face: A growing ‘deepfakes’ YouTube channel

#40

Post by jdietrich »

gambler wrote: post #22
buildzr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be too easy to fake, just replace the sensor in an approved camera with your own data feed. And that's assuming it wouldn't be somewhat trivial to dump keys from one or more cameras on the market to create a an easy tool or resignvideo.com... which is a massive assumption. As the movie industry has already seen, cryptography doesn't help you when you push out the keys to everyone. It'd be about as effective as D…

You're not thinking this through. The problem isn't that creators can make fake videos (which would be analogous to DRM). Let them. There is no harm in it. The problem is that users have no way of verifying true videos. This can be solved with cryptography, because both parties involved (creators and viewers) would want this to work. In other words, DRM is about forcing everyone to do a thing. Verification is about a…

I'm sorry, but you're not thinking this through. Being able to prove that a video file is the unaltered output of a particular camera is in no way a useful protection against fake videos. Proving that file A is genuine tells us nothing about whether file B is fake.

Let's say I want to create and circulate a fake sex tape featuring a senior politician. In a world where signed sensors are common but not mandatory, the absence of a signature says nothing at all about the integrity of my video - there are still millions of cameras in the world that produce unsigned files. In a world where they are mandatory, I can simply fake the video in software and then re-record it using a high-resolution display and a signed sensor. A digital video expert might be able to prove that such a re-recording process took place, but I highly doubt that they'd be able to say so with any degree of confidence if there's a bunch of sensor noise and a couple of rounds of low-bitrate transcoding.

Signed sensors won't do anything to undermine the credibility of fake videos, but they may have the opposite effect if they're hacked - I can "prove" that my deepfake is genuine, because I've extracted a signing key or injected a bitstream into a camera module.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/09/09/why-dig...

Post reply on HN