201–210 of 336 posts
"I am Cofounder and CEO at Sensity, formerly called Deeptrace, an AI security startup detecting and monitoring online visual threats such as “deepfakes”." (one of the contributors of this repo)
Well, genius of this guy. Create the threat then sell the cure. The old school business model we know from anti-virus software. "I am Cofounder and CEO at Sensity, formerly called Deeptrace, an AI security startup detecting and monitoring online visual threats such as “deepfakes”." (one of the contributors of this repo)
I work at Axis, which makes surveillance cameras.[0] This comment is my own, and is not on behalf of the company. I'm using a throwaway account because I'd rather not be identified (and because surveillance is quite controversial here). Axis has developed a way to cryptographically sign video, using TPMs (Trusted Platform Module) built into the cameras and embedding the signature into the h.264 stream.[1] The video c…
It shouldn't be too hard to film a deepfake movie from a screen or projection that don't make it obvious it was filmed. That way, the cryptographic signature will even lend extra authenticity to the deepfake!
> It shouldn't be too hard to film a deepfake movie from a screen or projection that don't make it obvious it was filmed. That way, the cryptographic signature will even lend extra authenticity to the deepfake!
Would you even have to go that far? Couldn't you just figure out how to embed a cryptographically valid signature in the right format, and call it good?
Say you wanted to take down a politician, so you deepfake a video of him slapping his wife on a streetcorner, and embed a signature indicating it's from some rando cell phone camera with serial XYZ. Claim you verified it, but the source wants to remain anonymous.
I don't think this idea address the problems caused by deepfakes, unless anonymous video somehow ceases to be a thing.
Similarly, it could have serious negative consequences, such as people being reluctant to share real video because they don't want to be identified and subject to reprisals (e.g. are in an authoritarian country and have video of human rights abuses).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the point to prove physical access to the camera. As in, this stream originated at this TPM which was sold as part of this camera. So, the best you get is that the stream shows it wasn't produced with access to a particular camera. Then impersonating a YouTuber, say, requires access to their physical camera.
> Isn't the point to prove physical access to the camera. Yes. But since you can't really prove who had and who did not have physical access to the camera (what are you going to use, video evidence ;) ) that carries little weight. Let's say we're talking about a death penalty or a multi billion $ lawsuit, the stakes would be so high that to rely on something as trivial as a signature on a video stream would be way to…
You have a lot more trust in the ethics of expert witnesses than I do.
To those who ask about the ethics of releasing something like this, I'd say that this technology already exists, and bad actors probably already can get access if they really want to and are sophisticated enough. Making this available to the general public will spread awareness of the existence of such tools, and can then possibly have a preventive effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone with a stalker, I can't emphasize this enough. A stalker will go to all sorts of lengths to do bizarre shit. People don't believe it. I would guess governments will do some equivalent there-of. Democratizing access to things -- including bad things -- has a preventative effect: 1) I can guard against things I know about 2) People take me seriously if something has been democratized The worst-case scenario…
Your "worst case" depends greatly on who the select group is. Is it movie studios making 9 figure budgets, or is it any obsessed person who can figure out how to find and install software. Obviously, it's hard to imagine many situations like that, but you can imagine a process that required a 8-figure quantum supercomputer.
To those who ask about the ethics of releasing something like this, I'd say that this technology already exists, and bad actors probably already can get access if they really want to and are sophisticated enough. Making this available to the general public will spread awareness of the existence of such tools, and can then possibly have a preventive effect.
That's like saying that nuclear weapons exist, and bad actors can potentially get them, so let's lower the bar so that anyone can. Making such tools accessible is reprehensible. It will lead to more bad actors, to less trust in media and in any objective reality, and more erosion of our institutions and society. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for this. It's unethical and frankly downright evil.
You’re being absurd.
The technology exists, and it’ll get better. Pretending that it doesn’t exist or banning it won’t make it go away — it’ll just be used by the least scrupulous and most powerful.
Disruptive efforts like this are most upsetting to anxiety-ridden people who think that if they could just control things firmly enough, everyone and everything will be safe.
That kind of thinking doesn’t actually work, though, and it produces a stiflingly rigid, oppressive society that deserves to be upset occasionally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your "worst case" depends greatly on who the select group is. Is it movie studios making 9 figure budgets, or is it any obsessed person who can figure out how to find and install software. Obviously, it's hard to imagine many situations like that, but you can imagine a process that required a 8-figure quantum supercomputer.
This is too myopic a view. Think about how far graphics have come on mobile devices let alone high end gaming machines in the past 5 years. This technology will eventually be accessible in the palm of your hand via a powerful enough device or the cloud. It's more a question of when than if.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your "worst case" depends greatly on who the select group is. Is it movie studios making 9 figure budgets, or is it any obsessed person who can figure out how to find and install software. Obviously, it's hard to imagine many situations like that, but you can imagine a process that required a 8-figure quantum supercomputer.
This is too myopic a view. Think about how far graphics have come on mobile devices let alone high end gaming machines in the past 5 years. This technology will eventually be accessible in the palm of your hand via a powerful enough device or the cloud. It's more a question of when than if.