171–180 of 210 posts
Why police (and media) cameras aren‘t forced to use camera hardware signing, aka content credentials, is beyond me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, There aren't any newspapers left in my country, neither printed nor not printed. The closest you can find is the weekly advertising booklet here and there. Which is irrelevant now because a computer can either stich new content to an old picture, or entirely producing a custom picture. That would be a use case for a block chain. But I still don't understand how you are securing the integrity of the valid…
If you want to prove that "happened at or after this timestamp" you can use a randomness beacon. NIST[0] and others publish a random number every N minutes. Embed that (or a combination) of those seeds to prove that you observed this value. This does not work for the harder problem of proving an event happened before a timestamp. [0] https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/interoperable-randomness-beac...
Embedding a public random number also doesn't resist tampering, unlike signed timestamps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experiece with whatsapp family groups is that a lot of people over 40 can't detect the most obvious AI fakes (e.g. Studio Gibli clones, or three handed people), so they share the most stupid stuff as it was real, while youngers seem have an instinct to detect AI but can't tell exactly why they know. I can picture a cop fabricating images that are obvious, even with a watermark included, while totally convinced tha…
The ai slop uses movie compositions in whats supossed to be handheld shots?
Which makes sense but still, ffs.
The headline evokes ideas of creating a video of a suspect perpetrating the crime but what I think is much more likely is the police officer used AI to enhance an image in a way that they considered innocuous, e.g: a photo was blurry so they “enhanced” it. Since “enhancing” is letting AI fill in the gaps it would be using AI to “create evidence”. Regardless of what they did, tampering with evidence is completely unac…
That is a lot of words just to say "fabricating evidence".
I would be interested in knowing both what kind of fabrication occurred, but perhaps I’m not curious about how it was discovered? Did the defense use some sort of tool to debunk? Was it just an obvious deepfake etc? Or was it the officer’s ineptitude that got him caught?
My experiece with whatsapp family groups is that a lot of people over 40 can't detect the most obvious AI fakes (e.g. Studio Gibli clones, or three handed people), so they share the most stupid stuff as it was real, while youngers seem have an instinct to detect AI but can't tell exactly why they know. I can picture a cop fabricating images that are obvious, even with a watermark included, while totally convinced tha…
i do wonder, that in the age where we have image and video creation out of the bag, whether or not this will result in whole classes of evidence becoming completely unreliable.
I would be interested in knowing both what kind of fabrication occurred, but perhaps I’m not curious about how it was discovered? Did the defense use some sort of tool to debunk? Was it just an obvious deepfake etc? Or was it the officer’s ineptitude that got him caught?
Such a case should trigger a auto revision on all cases said officer ever touched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a big gap between "theoretically unreliable" and courts actually recognizing that, unfortunately. Lots of forensics is much more dubious than CSI would have you believe.
My girlfriends been having me watch law and order svu with her and to be honest it doesn't really even seem trustworthy with how they want to present it. The psychologist guy especially will come up with some wildly detailed assertions about who the criminal is based on nothing