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

NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

cisa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 195 posts

Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

#151

Post by mistrial9 »

_trampeltier wrote: post #131

I couldn't find the comment again, but as somebody else said here on HN a while ago. The comment was like .. We live in special times. Until 100 years ago we had just news from other people, mouth to mouth. So we had to decide what is wright and what just BS. Last 100 years we had newspapers, radio and TV. News was mostly true, we could trust what we saw on pictures, on screen. But now again .. pictures can so easy b…

this timeline is way off .. intellectuals of the mid-1600 in certain places got news from all over the world. There were contests between language groups in all the major sciences and engineering. The printing press was beginning mass produced content.. that was all a solid 500+ years ago

Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

#152

Post by mistrial9 »

rtkwe wrote: post #115
perhonen wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

perhaps because the threat of "comply or there will be consequences" worked.

Except most of the posts pointed out to places like Twitter stayed up with no moderation applied and the worst thing that's happened to Twitter recently is it's acquisition by Musk.

this is rewriting history .. the hysterical and high-pitched censorship of all things COVID-19 set a new low for the USA in modern times IMHO

California here

Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

#153

Post by unethical_ban »

nwoli wrote: post #83
patwolf wrote: post #64

I'm old enough to remember back in 2005 when terrorist in Iraq claimed to be holding a US soldier hostage, and it turned out the whole thing was staged using photos of a doll: Original story: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/world/africa/rebels-say-t... Confirmation of hoax: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6894934 It's pretty easy to see that the photo is a hoax, but many news outlets didn't notice and ran the story…

If I take a photo with a cryptographically signed camera of a polaroid containing an image that i deep faked, how does that ensure the image can be trusted?

I trust that you took an unaltered picture of a Polaroid.

Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

#154

Post by unethical_ban »

fasterik wrote: post #148
pokstad wrote: post #109

We got lazy with the internet age. We’re going to have to go back to basic principles again. That means if you didn’t see it with your own eyes, it’s not real. If someone didn’t tell you in person, then they didn’t tell you. Maybe this won’t be a bad thing after all.

This is bad epistemology. I can't possibly verify all of the facts of physics, chemistry, biology, history, economics, medicine, law, politics, etc. through my own senses and through people that I know personally. It would be impossible to have any knowledge of the world that way. The real solution is to carefully select a variety of experts who you trust as sources of information, and rely on the consensus of those…

I think the idea is what you say, and what the parent said.

Before internet and telephone, we still took things on faith from people we met, be it travellers or politicians or newspapers. But newspapers and politicians were more local, and didn't buy into whatever they read like scripture the way many seem to do these days.

Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

#155

Post by Horffupolde »

jstarfish wrote: post #133
Horffupolde wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d say it’s either a joke, real, or a canary.

Betting on all possible outcomes doesn't really make a statement...

Sometimes it’s good enough to understand what all possible outcomes are.

Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

#156

Post by fasterik »

unethical_ban wrote: post #154
fasterik wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bad epistemology. I can't possibly verify all of the facts of physics, chemistry, biology, history, economics, medicine, law, politics, etc. through my own senses and through people that I know personally. It would be impossible to have any knowledge of the world that way. The real solution is to carefully select a variety of experts who you trust as sources of information, and rely on the consensus of those…

I think the idea is what you say, and what the parent said. Before internet and telephone, we still took things on faith from people we met, be it travellers or politicians or newspapers. But newspapers and politicians were more local, and didn't buy into whatever they read like scripture the way many seem to do these days.

Before the 20th century, newspapers were explicitly partisan and were basically free to publish whatever suited their agenda. It is only in the 20th century that we see a more objective journalism emerge with the ideas of journalistic ethics, reliable sources, fact-checking, etc.

I really don't think the situation today is as bad as people say it is. You can still go to the news pages (not the opinion pages) of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and the Economist, and the vast majority of what they publish is reliable information. We can debate over the partisan nature of what stories they choose to emphasize and editorialized headlines, but it's not like they are regularly publishing lies and nonsense.

Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

#157

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

superkuh wrote: post #125
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that rather than altered, they’re generated. It’s a new seeming-photograph that can’t be discovered as an alteration by checking against other photos to play “spot the difference”. Nobody really had this capability before.

>Nobody really had this capability before. I find your distinction between altering and creating to be ... a sidetrack. But okay, let's pretend I said "Deepfakes is just the hype word for digitally altering or creating photos/videos". Large institutions/etc have definitely been able to create novel "photos" from scratch for a long time now. It was just a lot of work, which is why it was restricted to large groups of…

I see your point. I'm not sure I agree with all of the statements in your original comment but this one that caught my attention is a pretty minor distinction. CGI in movies is essentially this same thing but done manually by humans, sometimes even without input from the actor: see Carrie Fisher in whatever Star Wars movie I forgot.

There's still something about the scale of effort that seems to change this, though. For example, even if a government could hire people to produce a fake photograph, and even do so in time to use the photograph for some political manipulation, I'm not so convinced they could do so with a video. Even considering that large organizations could already do this technically, the ease of function that this allows is pretty worrying, though I do otherwise think it is a good thing that this technology is "out of the bag", so to speak.

Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

#158

Post by mcpackieh »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #94
moomoo3000 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depth channel?

I've seen pretty good depth estimation algorithms that work off of 2D images, even without the use of AI.

Those depth estimation algorithms can't be used to distinguish a photo of a photo from just a photo. They will report false depth in a photograph of a flat photograph.

Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

#159

Post by mcpackieh »

aqme28 wrote: post #150
rtkwe wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could but then that only really works for rehosting the exact same video. Most places would at least embed it in another video for commentary which would have a reencoding step that would wipe out the original video. See my other comments for more detail but it would require changing how we handle videos to preserve the signing info.

That's a problem with embedding then, not with compression, right? Would embedding a raw video with commentary not also have the same problem?

Follow the discussion chain back up: jacobsimon's posed the question: "How would that work with video editing?"

The answer is that it doesn't. Some might try to make it work by using proprietary video editing software that signs a ledger of what edit operations were performed, or something like that, but that doesn't work. The signing keys will eventually be extracted from the video editor or the camera, or the video editor or camera will be hacked to sign something it shouldn't. You might say that this at least stops low-skilled attackers, but the misinformation that is most dangerous to humanity, that created by governments to start wars, won't be impeded by any of these schemes. The whole cryptographic signature proposal is worse than useless.

Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats

#160

Post by chromoblob »

14 wrote: post #90
rhplus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…what the camera saw. Cameras can record screens. Perhaps adding a signed channel for depth and/or non-visible light would be the next step.

For sure but if they do it right it will make it hard enough and time consuming enough that only top actors can afford to do it.

Is that good, though? If a hole in a system is exploited by only "the top", it may be disregarded and "the top" will be able to inject anything there, but if it is exploitable by anyone from a wide group, then info from the system will be widely distrusted and communication may work around it?

Also, how to protect a chip from reverse engineering even from all except "top actors"? I remember the price for reverse engineering of certain ICs was between 5 and 7 figures of USD. Don't know about modern IC processes, but it may be affordable for many even for those?

Post reply on HN