Deepfakes weaponised to target Pakistan's women leaders • Hacker News Board

Re: Deepfakes weaponised to target Pakistan's women leaders

#31

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 08, 2024, 3:22 PM UTC

jimjimwii wrote: post #19

nox101 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

deepfakes are not a form of sexual criminality. Gees Thought Police here we come!

To me, its just another form of fiction. Its as much a crime as writing a story where you base a character in it on someone you know, and subject that character to sexual acts. Sure its depraved, but it doesn't pass the criminality threshold for me, not by a long shot. And no, i do not see the use of real photos and video to be material to this specific discussion. I think this issue is a great way to evaluate the va…

[deleted]

Re: Deepfakes weaponised to target Pakistan's women leaders

#32

Post by burnerthrow008 » Sun, Dec 08, 2024, 4:36 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #18

estebank wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making film backed images from edited digital pictures is not beyond the ability of a motivated individual, let alone a state entity. Even something as rudimentary as a film camera pointed at a slightly out of focus 4k screen can be made believable, specially in a film stock with heavy grain.

I guess if you have enough resources, faking something is possible. But making it expensive means fewer people could do it. The advent of ai and ease of doing so is what is dangerous. Perhaps images taken in the future by digital cameras need to come with an IR depth map as well, which would make it harder to fake.

But it doesn't even seem expensive?

4k monitors are cheap these days, as are used 35mm film cameras. I bet you could build the system estebank mentioned for less than $500.

Adding a depth map to a simulated image sounds cheaper than adding it to a real image.

Re: Deepfakes weaponised to target Pakistan's women leaders

#33

Post by qingcharles » Sun, Dec 08, 2024, 8:50 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #16

para_parolu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We basically get back to pre-photo era, when all you access your information based on credibility of messenger.

or for photos, only film evidence can be admitted. Digital content (or even digitized content, unless there's a film backup), is inadmissable.

I can use film to take a photo of a screen... :/

The way they solve this issue in court is having the photographer lay a foundation by swearing to the authenticity of the image.