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

Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

news.sky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

#201

Post by asdff »

Arodex wrote: post #160
asdff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people. If you have running water, some tape, and trashbags, you too could have a darkroom. https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/objects/objects@exhibi... The roll itself can be manipulated too. Most of the techniques used in modern photoshop are basically 1:1 carry overs of darkroom processes. Layers, dodge and burn, masking, etc. There was a time you could take this class in highschool.

You try to equate several days of work, specialized equipment (much more than water and trash bag: you need chemicals, baths, special paper, a projector, plates...) and knowledge with typing a text in a webpage. Have fun keeping making bad faith arguments alone.

You are getting caught up in how the sausage is made and not the fact that the sausage was always getting sold either way. So what if I can make 1 or a billion propaganda videos a day? The volume here does not matter. The end result is the same: populace in the pocket of propagandists just as much as it has ever been.

Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

#202

Post by [deleted] »

pyth0 wrote: post #124
asdff wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we acting like that was ever a limiting factor towards disseminating propaganda in the analog age?

No obviously not. But this is silly framing because there are so many things we do because it increases the effort for bad actors to do bad things. We close and lock our doors not because it prevents break-ins, but because that is a barrier that makes breaking in more inconvenient.

[deleted]

Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

#203

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

phreeza wrote: post #158
XorNot wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but conceptually no one should've been able to crack any hashing scheme anyone half-way decent at their job could come up. SHA256 is the default and it's unbroken. Even SHA1 has scant few known collisions. So like...what the heck were they hashing and how that anyone was able to crack it?

Maybe its more like the hash was a well known secure hash but someone managed to extract the salt/private key/signing certificate from the camera?

Most likely is either extracting the private key from the camera or getting the camera to sign arbitrary data. If the signing isn't part of the sensor die itself there's a bus where the image data gets transferred from sensor to signer, so an attacker can inject arbitrary data onto that bus to get it signed, even though they never actually extract the signing key.

Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

#204

Post by jasonfarnon »

inigyou wrote: post #140
jasonfarnon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, again, there are some incentives to fabricate evidence like career advancement. Now why should those, on a mass scale, outweigh disincentives like getting caught in an adversarial process and (presumably) some qualm about regularly convicting innocents and regularly letting guilty parties run free in communities. Easy to argue in particular cases but I haven't heard the basis for a trend.

What adversarial process? If the prosecutor loses the case, the defendant doesn't go to jail but still receives a very big punishment and the prosecutor loses nothing. And prosecutors never prosecute themselves for false prosecution.

adversarial process = anglo-american trial system = a defendant has an attorney who is looking for prosecutorial misconduct

Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

#205

Post by jasonfarnon »

jrflowers wrote: post #156
jasonfarnon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, again, there are some incentives to fabricate evidence like career advancement. Now why should those, on a mass scale, outweigh disincentives like getting caught in an adversarial process and (presumably) some qualm about regularly convicting innocents and regularly letting guilty parties run free in communities. Easy to argue in particular cases but I haven't heard the basis for a trend.

> (presumably) some qualm This sounds like you’re imagining how prosecutors as a group sort of feel about things, generally, and that this notion you’ve thought of outweighs the demonstrable real-world system where prosecutors are awarded for convictions, full stop.

I certainly didn't claim " this notion you’ve thought of outweighs the demonstrable real-world system ". However the original comment requires that " " this notion you’ve thought of [doesn't] outweighs the demonstrable real-world system ", and that's what I wanted evidence of. Don't shift the burden of proof onto me.

Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

#206

Post by sveme »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #155
sveme wrote: post #142

Why police (and media) cameras aren‘t forced to use camera hardware signing, aka content credentials, is beyond me.

It's because they're a scam. Point the camera at a forged image with a higher resolution than the camera sensor and it will make a signed copy of the unsigned forgery. That's before getting into the practical problems with securing the keys. Every camera by every manufacturer has keys in it and the attacker only needs one key from one camera, and they get to choose the model? Creating something premised on needing to…

Really good points, thank you for pointing this out. What I'm mostly thinking of is the usage in e.g., social media. There will be efforts to do what you suggest, but for your typical facebook user and scammers, this might help with the more common situations where people use GenAI.

Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

#207

Post by sveme »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #200
gorgoiler wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what about if: …the signature included the depth measured by the autofocus system across the image? …or a tiny stereo image was included to capture depth? …or a mini video in the ten seconds before and after the photo was taken? …and the key is in a tamper proof HSM? …and the key is deleted the moment the camera detects the case being taken apart? I know that it is a losing battle to try to build such hardware wh…

> the signature included the depth measured by the autofocus system across the image? > or a tiny stereo image was included to capture depth? These systems work by having multiple sensors to use for depth perception, so enterprising hackers write software to create two images, one for each sensor, and put some kind of lens or mirror in front of the camera to direct a different image/screen to each sensor. The problem…

It's obviously a loosing battle. You're thinking of elaborate attackers, I'm thinking of your common policeman or scammer. Not great security, but might be able to solve the easyness problem introduced by GenAI.

Out of curiosity, what would be your proposal for identifying GenAI images and videos? Any suggestions?

Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

#208

Post by asdff »

pyth0 wrote: post #124
asdff wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we acting like that was ever a limiting factor towards disseminating propaganda in the analog age?

No obviously not. But this is silly framing because there are so many things we do because it increases the effort for bad actors to do bad things. We close and lock our doors not because it prevents break-ins, but because that is a barrier that makes breaking in more inconvenient.

We close and lock our doors to keep people undergoing psychosis out. Burglars are not stopped by locks.

Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

#209

Post by aorloff »

dspillett wrote: post #37
aorloff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine in this age of blockchains you could embed into a media file a signature that proved it was no older than the timestamp of when it occurred, the digital equivalent of a hostage-proof-of-life photo with a recent newspaper But I don't know of a cryptographic mechanism to ensure that a digital image is not more recent than a particular time

> But I don't know of a cryptographic mechanism to ensure that a digital image is not more recent than a particular time Many (most?) blockchain mechanisms include a timestamp in each transaction on the chain, so while multiple records from the same owner prove little (the timestamps could be faked over a given period of time) the interaction with the wider network and the chain would give some confidence that the re…

I suppose you could put a hash of the content into a TXT record

Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases

#210

Post by dspillett »

aorloff wrote: post #209
dspillett wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I don't know of a cryptographic mechanism to ensure that a digital image is not more recent than a particular time Many (most?) blockchain mechanisms include a timestamp in each transaction on the chain, so while multiple records from the same owner prove little (the timestamps could be faked over a given period of time) the interaction with the wider network and the chain would give some confidence that the re…

I suppose you could put a hash of the content into a TXT record

There isn't a way to externally sign/validate a TXT record, that I know of.

A TXT record may be used in the signing process if using DNS verification, but you are getting a certificate for the name overall so using an A record to hold the hash you are looking to certify does the trick, then if you want to use HTTP-01 for verification rather than an extra DNS record you can.

Post reply on HN