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

Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 336 posts

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#51

Post by Planktonne »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #45
Planktonne wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's no duty to consider potential harm when releasing tools, then why would there be a duty to avoid criticising people who release them?

But if such things exist in secret and there's neither awareness nur a reference implementation to develop countermeasures against, wouldn't that also cause harm?

Absolutely, and there's definitely a strong argument to be made for increasing awareness of existing tools and attack vectors.

Importantly though, that aim is served by proofs-of-concept and information sharing more than it is by releasing point-and-shoot attacks. This comment puts it rather well [1].

As above, I'm not saying this shouldn't have been created, or even that it shouldn't have been released. I am saying that there are important ethical considerations and questions raised that should be addressed directly by the creators, rather than being handwaved away as in the quoted disclaimer.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31652008

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#52

Post by wiz21c »

Planktonne wrote: post #7

> Authors and contributing developers assume no liability and are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by the use of this program. Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability. If you create something, make it freely accessible and easy to use, then I think you are partly responsible for its misuse. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have created…

Reminds me of Oppenheimer: "I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds."

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#53

Post by jacquesm »

vsnf wrote: post #46
jacquesm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you claim that you are legally not responsible for any abuses of this software do you feel any moral responsibility?

What kind of answer to your question would you accept? What kind of answer would you be very satisfied with, versus merely be placated by? I'm curious because I have my own answer to your question for my own things that I suspect you would be unhappy with, and I'm wondering how absolute-good you require your interrogatees to be.

I don't have any expectations. In fact that idea that there would be an answer that I would be 'very satisfied with' would make such a question meaningless, it would presume that I am about to judge the author, which I'm not. It's an AMA so I did just that.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#54

Post by throw457 »

jl6 wrote: post #28

Which requires more computation: a real-time deepfake or real-time deepfake detection? That will determine the future balance of power.

Deepfakes are for deceiving humans. There are still way too many artifacts in the outputs that are easy to detect in code.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#55

Post by ls15 »

Planktonne wrote: post #7

> Authors and contributing developers assume no liability and are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by the use of this program. Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability. If you create something, make it freely accessible and easy to use, then I think you are partly responsible for its misuse. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have created…

Unless we cut off the chain of responsibility somewhere, the creators of the programming language, the computer and its components, as well as the people who have designed the computer and those who mined the required minerals are responsible as well.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#57

Post by yosito »

A few months ago, the IRS made me verify my identity using some janky video conferencing software where I had to hold up a copy of my passport. The software was so hard to use, that I can't believe average people manage to do it. Now, real-time deep fakes are literally easier to create than using the video verification software itself. This will have interesting societal implications.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#58

Post by stef25 »

Planktonne wrote: post #7

> Authors and contributing developers assume no liability and are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by the use of this program. Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability. If you create something, make it freely accessible and easy to use, then I think you are partly responsible for its misuse. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have created…

What's the difference between this and Metasploit, sqlmap, ... ? Not saying you're wrong, it's just that while these tools have valid and legal uses (pentesting) they're also used in black hat scenarios and one could say the same about DOT.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#59

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

xiphias2 wrote: post #14

Governments and bank branches should offer physical identification as a (potentially payed) service globally, and provide a digital signature that a person is owning a physical device (which should be valid until the device is reset or invalidated by the person).

I always imagined the USPS fulfilling this need.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#60

Post by yosito »

jacquesm wrote: post #31
SXX wrote: post #27

To all people who ask moral side of this tech and that it can be abused. What do you think about tools like Kali Linux? NMAP? Basically any pentesting software can be abused.

It's not what we think about this, it is what the creators think about it that matters.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about it.
Post reply on HN