Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reliably left wing? Yes. Reliably truthful? No.
Truth does have a left-wing bias.
that'll be a great line for the next struggle session
NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
181–190 of 195 posts
Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
#182Courts already have processes in place to challenge evidence; I’m not worried about them. The problem with deepfakes is the instant amplification they’ll get from media and well-intentioned responses from people of good faith. So there will be the deepfake of (insert your favorite politician) saying something unsavory and it’ll be taken at face value and a bunch of people will cancel their social media and bank accou…
> What if legislators were required to wait one year before passing laws in response to a public event of some sort? Someone discovers a way to bypass regulations and legislature and easily acquire the material needed to create a dirty bomb and sets one off. Now we wait 365 days to fix the loophole. Pretty obviously an absurd extremity for that example, but I sure as shit don't want there to be that level of lag time…
The situation you describe is really contrived.
What happens in real life is that in emergencies, the legislature passes some “sentencing enhancement” that adds on a decade or three of prison time in the circumstance. Or they create a new bureaucracy that in the end just makes life worse for everyone, like the DHS and all the airport suckage that happened after 9/11 - if you’re too young to remember, flying on airplanes did not always suck.
Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must admit I found that element of the story...surprising. Has realtime faking gotten that good yet? Presumably there was back and forth in this call so this person was either disguising their voice or typing responses to be generated on the fly. I know all this can be done, I'm just surprised it's reached the maturity where an attacker would choose to impersonate someone the call recipient presumably knew vs just…
I can't remember which election it was, but the 3D animated character was pushing the limits of real-time rendering for its day when he appeared on a morning talk show and answered questions live. So the live thing has been around for quite some time. The deep fake just allows for the models to look believable. Once you have a model, you can make it do anything.
Faking a famous person would seem to me to be easier (for various reasons) than faking my colleague. It's not enough to fake the sound of their voice, it's also the manner in which they speak - word choice, attitude, responses, knowledge, sense of humour etc. But I'm guessing the target of this attack only knew the fake person they were speaking to marginally.
The approach seems to be unnecessarily risky vs just phoning up pretending to be someone they didn't know is my point.
Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
What you call 'unsubstantive' and 'flamebait' are sincerely held opinions. If you want to express how a comment is unsubstantive or wrong, feel free to respond to that comment - I always endeavour to respond - and if I have it wrong I will thank you for any corrections.
My position is that everyone is 'on the take' - and as that appears to be the truth I don't want to pretend otherwise - let's just be honest about the state of the world. What is the value of pretending - as if our jobs depended on it (which for most, they do) - that there is some great moral cause in play, or that the future will be wonderful? "We", on this site, code the dystopia. Fine, take the money but then don't also try to tell me how this is a good thing and for the benefit of humanity. With the corporate and governance structure, we are dealing with the manipulation and manoeuvring of the masses into doing things that someone, somewhere has decided will be of personal benefit. I think the notion that they are 'there to help' and are 'fair authorities' of how we proceed, needs to be disabused, if there is genuine human progress to be made.
Part of the issue is that there is a massive excess of trust in the institutions and corporations, despite it being clear that they are socially engineering the masses to want what they have to sell. The scale of what they have achieved is remarkable.
That these institutions are taken seriously - despite their obviously self-serving and nefarious nature - is problematic for everyone, even those who want nothing to do with it, like myself. Amazingly, most high flying people who have been through the propagandising system, seem incapable of recognising how much trust they are placing in these institutions, and are unaware of how little personal discernment they apply. I am addressing that.
WRT your point that I am making unsubstantive comments - take a moment to reflect on the other comments on the site. When they are cheerleading the military, or liberal causes (unsubstantively, like me on occasion) or whatever other media promoted causes - is that ok? If you agree with the thrust of the lightweight comment, are you also capable of telling them they are insubstantial, or do you reserve your judgements (as above) only for those who express views against what you hold?
PS I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to discuss the way HN is run with you. I have previously been banned here (2 years ago?), my comments are frequently downvoted, or upvoted and then massively downvoted, my posts flagged, etc - ie it seems that I am quietly supressed despite my making an effort to express a sincere view. I do not understand the value of the low level de-platforming I have experienced - all that occurs is that you create a corporate echo chamber. I can only conclude that it is likely that this is what is desired.
However, in the name of truth, as I believe I have valid, considered opinions that happen to challenge accepted convention, and as I also value the platform and the information submitted here, with respect, I will be entirely ignoring your request as it seems unreasonable to me. Thanks again.
Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't have to live in the world where people are maximally naive (even if it seems so today). That also assumes there's not a signed video available of the event, usually things are recorded by more than one person especially a speech by the president. The biggest risk IMO is that key becomes immediately one of the most important secrets to keep since it holds the promise of validating anything you want to lie abo…
Signing keys can be derived from a root key that allows for rotation and revocation. Multiple keys can sign the same content.
Now you have to securely deliver those keys to the cameras and people have to keep them up to date. With smartphones it's a bit easier because that can just be pushed to the phone automatically but for news orgs and other professional outfits their camera's aren't internet connected. So then you have a weird mishmash of deciding if an out of date key is being used because it's been cracked/stolen or if the NBC stringer just didn't update their camera before heading to the event.
Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You've nailed it this whole thread is about actually using the footage in anything other than it's raw original format. As soon as you start embedding it in other footage to say present and comment on it you run into all sorts of issues dealing with maintaining the signatures.
Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 don't think photos are the real issue, it's video with voice. Think of telephone scams, and now apply deepfake versions of a family member to it. Imagine your 70yo aunt having to deal with knowing if the whatsapp audio or zoom call that sounds/looks like you is really you. I don't think this was possible before, feel free to prove me wrong with some evidence.
Video is just many photos in series.
In the past to find the right person to imitate someone elses voice you'd have to do a lot of casting trials/etc that would cost a lot of money. So it was restricted to only large corps, governments, institutions, etc. But now any human person can do it. And that's great.
Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.…
Deepfake videos are quite terrible right now. The frame to frame consistency for novel created images in series is difficult to do with stablediffusion even with controlnet, etc. Maybe in another handful of years novel deepfakes videos will look real. But right now they definitely do not.
Unless you're reversing your prior point and now talking exclusively about only deepfakes that alter existing video (like face replacement) and not about novel created from scratch video. The face replacement stuff can almost look real.
Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
#189Re: NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
What you call 'unsubstantive' and 'flamebait' are sincerely held opinions. If you want to express how a comment is unsubstantive or wrong, feel free to respond to that comment - I always endeavour to respond - and if I have it wrong I will thank you for any corrections. My position is that everyone is 'on the take' - and as that appears to be the truth I don't want to pretend otherwise - let's just be honest about th…
From an HN guidelines point of view it's not so relevant whether your opinions are sincere or not, or even whether you're right or not. HN isn't an anything-goes website—there's a particular type of game we're trying to play, which can be summed up as curious conversation. Flamebait and unsubstantive comments destroy that; so do grandiose rhetoric, ideological battle, snark, fulmination, and various other things the site guidelines ask you not to do. If you want to post here, we need you to play by those rules.