31–40 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No? But aljazeera can sign their content with their private key. That's how signing works...
Sure, but aljazeera can sign a deepfake with their key just as readily as a real video, the signature does not ensure the realness of the video - it can only establish a part of it's "chain of sources".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photoshop and 'morphing' did not lead to deluge of claims and counter-claims around fake pictures. Why? Do society and human behavior adopts to new reality?
What? It absolutely did!
Why is voice audio always so hard to get right? Seems like it should be easier than video because the data rate is lower than video but computer generated audio has always been terrible.
This is also true of visual facial expressions, but deep fakes know to avoid close ups on the face otherwise the deceit would be apparent, and we are accustomed to seeing faces from afar. Audio on the other hand, we just dont accept perceiving it badly: We'll ask the person to speak louder and clearer, turn up the volume, come closer etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but aljazeera can sign a deepfake with their key just as readily as a real video, the signature does not ensure the realness of the video - it can only establish a part of it's "chain of sources".
We can do a full "Video SecureBoot" thing, where the camera sensor signs stuff at the lowest level and every other level adds additional signatures, so you know the full chain of what happened (what cam took what part of the final video, what software edited, and who did the editing). Nothing in that scheme requires "rights management". Ultimately still it comes down to trust: do you trust the org who put out the vid…
Authentic for pay content would have contained unique signatures that acted as a watermark.
If someone ilegally shared the signed version it could be traced back and action could be targeted. The goal was not to make it impossible to pirate content (I find it foolish to try to prevent this) but to make unsigned content undesirable due to uncertain authenticity. The same way authentic colectables are desirable due to their authenticity. A forgery of a famous painting is worth a lot less than the original if you know it is fake even if it is a perfect copy. A reissue of a first edition comic book is worth less even if the content is the same.
In some markets 3C marketing works better than 4P marketing and this results in a circular symbiotic relationship between creator and consumer rather than a hierarchical antagonic relationship.
This also included a way of remixing content that allowed distribution of the original along with the alterations. A sort of open source for media. Think of distributing your Blender/Premiere/ After Effects/etc. project file instead of the rendered result. It would have also been possible to share the alterations without the original and let the user provide their own copy if the original. This was based on a very wrong understanding of what is a derivative from a legal pov.
Alas, this was a foolish dream in my youth, but it was a vision of what media formats would have been like in a parallel world where authenticity was worth more than monopoly over distribution. A world where plagiarism would have been a bigger crime instead of copyright infringement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but aljazeera can sign a deepfake with their key just as readily as a real video, the signature does not ensure the realness of the video - it can only establish a part of it's "chain of sources".
But are you going to trust aljazeera's signature on a [potential] deepfake of an American politician as the only source of truth about whether that video is real?
1. cookie acceptance
2. subscribe to mailing list
3. subscribe to technology review
4. some ad that overtook half of the screen
Do they want people actually read this website?
This page opened not one, not two, not three, but four pop-ups that I needed to close to get to the article. 1. cookie acceptance 2. subscribe to mailing list 3. subscribe to technology review 4. some ad that overtook half of the screen Do they want people actually read this website?
Reading the website often can be considered harmful as you may not share it if the article is not as interesting as title that took you there.
This page opened not one, not two, not three, but four pop-ups that I needed to close to get to the article. 1. cookie acceptance 2. subscribe to mailing list 3. subscribe to technology review 4. some ad that overtook half of the screen Do they want people actually read this website?
I had to open up an incognito browser to see what you were talking about. In my normal browsing experience I only got the thing on the bottom half. And perhaps there is a possibility that I already had managed the cookies in the past.
So if you're framed by deepfake the only way to prove it's not you is to come up with film of you elsewhere. And so you're going to film yourself wherever you are to mitigate being framed...? The other probably more appealing use is to have a credible figure (say maybe Greta Thunberg) say she was just kidding about climate change and global warming. Fake news is going to have a party. It's going to get ever more diff…
No need to film yourself. You just got to make sure your deepfaked alibi is better. I wonder if in the future it's not about being able to afford better lawyers, but better fakes.
This could be a better pivot for Stadia than cloud gaming. Cloud deep fakes for everyone.