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

To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

metaphysic.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 285 posts

Re: To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

#271

Post by npteljes »

themoonisachees wrote: post #261
Epokhe wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask the caller to move their hand in front of the camera so the hand fully obstructs the view, and then slowly slide the hand to the side until it completely moves out of the view. Crop-resistant!

Until tech improves to fix this too. Detecting ai-generated content is a fool's errand since that is literally how they get better.

It's only a fool's errant if you give up. If you don't give up, then it's a cat-and-mouse game. Forever outsmarting the other, but neither side winning permanently.

Re: To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

#272

Post by krageon »

mdp2021 wrote: post #267
mdp2021 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No issue here. It appears your system allows it.

@Moderators, it very clearly appears from this puzzling case that the downvoting idea instilled in users is broken.

I would say your comment is:

- Vague

- A variation of "works on my machine"

And is therefore tedious and doesn't add anything to the discussion. It deserves the downvotes it gets, because they are for low-quality content.

Re: To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

#273

Post by mike_hearn »

chii wrote: post #256
judge2020 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you verify they are who they say they are, though? And verifying their picture matches their name?

you don't. You assume that the key distribution mechanism is secure, so that whoever has the key _is_ who they say they are. This doesn't prevent adversarial impersonation (where you cannot trust the party that want themselves impersonated). E.g., if you are an employer, and interviewing via video, you cannot tell that the person authenticated and performing on video is indeed the person you're hiring. I dont think t…

That just moves the problem around, it doesn't solve it. It's also incompatible with anti-money laundering laws that don't make it easy/safe to outsource ID verification.

Re: To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

#274

Post by mike_hearn »

Starlevel001 wrote: post #118
mike_hearn wrote: post #112

Long term, the only robust way to solve this is going to involve a remote attestation chain i.e. video that's being signed by the web cam as it's produced, and then transformed/recompressed inside e.g. SGX enclaves or an SEV protected virtual machine that's sending an RA to the other side. Although hard to set up (you need a lot of people to cooperate and CPU vendors have to bring these features back to consumer hard…

Applying technological solutions to social problems hasn't worked a single time before, but SURELY it'll work this time

DeepFakes are a technological problem, not a social problem.

Re: To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

#275

Post by bsenftner »

WalterBright wrote: post #78
bsenftner wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's "bread and butter" work in VFX. I used to be a stunt double actor replacement specialist. These daze, ML enhanced tools make the work for a face replacement shot exponentially faster and easier - as is needed for the huge number of superhero stunts insurance companies will not let the stars perform.

So do we really know that Tom Cruise is doing his own stunts as claimed?

Each film he does one very public stunt for real; for the other stunt shots he does them as well, but not hanging off the side of a building or whatever, he's 5 inches off the ground with a landing pad in case someone slips. Remember that whatever is in the background was probably not there when the sequence was shot; background replacement is another "bread and butter" effect.

Re: To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

#276

Post by aasasd »

notduncansmith wrote: post #79
tiborsaas wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please say "I'm not a robot" with a Scottish accent 3 times and do a backflip to login.

But voice recognition technology… it don’t do Scottish accents https://youtu.be/TqAu-DDlINs

That will be a different one, that does Scottish accent and nothing else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiL23P1W9dQ

Re: To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

#277

Post by biztos »

deaddodo wrote: post #226
anticristi wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-driving cars are common in Europe for decades. We just use the less cool term "subway" for them. Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

Subways are common worldwide. In fact, the first (practical) one was in Boston; not in Europe. Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;)

London and Budapest had subways before Boston did. So did some other cities depending on which list you look at.

So what made Boston’s later entry the first “practical” one?

[Edit] Or do you mean self-driving subways? Does Boston have one already? A quick Googling suggests the opposite:

https://whdh.com/news/mbta-officials-considering-self-drivin...

Re: To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

#278

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

beeboop wrote: post #245
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you configure your browser to not allow websites to hijack how scrolling works?

Possibly disabling JS, which isn't uncommon for HN users

Ah, yeah I could see that.

I tried using NoScript a long time ago and felt it just broke everything and I didn't want to start whitelisting every site I use just to make the web usable. uBlock Origin is good enough for blocking ads and trackers.

Re: To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

#279

Post by hosh »

eru wrote: post #263
hosh wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therefore, developing and customizing a proper framework for security and privacy starts by accurately assessing statutory, regulatory, and contractual obligations, and the organization's appetite for risks in balance with the organization's mission and vision, before developing the policies and and specific practices that organizational members should be doing. To use a Go (the game, not the language) metaphor, skil…

Asking the caller to turn sideways is also a cheap countermeasure without serious side-effects. So there's low risk to adopting it.

If that is conclusion that is considered within the organization’s custom security and privacy framework, sure.

If there is no such framework, this is no different than yoloing lines of code in a production app by a team that does not have at least some grasp of the architectural principles and constraints at play. Or worse, not understanding the “job to be done” and building the wrong product and solving for the wrong problem.

Re: To uncover a deepfake video call, ask the caller to turn sideways

#280

Post by mdp2021 »

krageon wrote: post #272
mdp2021 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@Moderators, it very clearly appears from this puzzling case that the downvoting idea instilled in users is broken.

I would say your comment is: - Vague - A variation of "works on my machine" And is therefore tedious and doesn't add anything to the discussion. It deserves the downvotes it gets, because they are for low-quality content.

It does not provide a cure for cancer, because its job is simply to inform the user suffering an issue that the experienced issue is not strictly on the server side but depends on the client side. Which appears duly, as a first step in troubleshooting. It informs the user that there are configurations that avoid it, so the user has an orientation to possibly check for alternatives, assess and reconsider local configuration. More details (works on this and that) are avoided for obvious privacy reasons.

In the new titles I saw an "is site s down": the information "works here", which you seem to be calling avoidable, is in fact a basic troubleshooting step to reconstruct where the issue is.

Post reply on HN