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

71–80 of 195 posts

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

#71

Post by pixl97 »

georgeplusplus wrote: post #31
carstenhag wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is different in my opinion. * Text: You have little (definitive) clue who wrote what. You essentially have to ask the (apparent) writer. * Photo: You used to have high confidence that a picture shows who appears to be shown. Not 100%, sure, but it's high. * Video & Audio: You used to have very high confidence that the video including its audio are genuine. It was very difficult to replace video and/or audio. Nowad…

>>>> Nowadays, none is trustworthy by default anymore. Perhaps that is a good thing. Maybe this is a good excuse to stop and consider multiple news outlets, even if it conflicts with our own opinions, for our news sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood

The thing about FoF is it gets people to stop believing anything which is very effective for bad actors and far less useful for good actors.

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

#72

Post by mu53 »

artursapek wrote: post #43
matheusmoreira wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea why you're being downvoted. Governments the world over propagate disinformation every single day with absolute impunity. Yesterday I was reading this article about the day the USA almost accidentally nuked itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash > The Pentagon claimed at the time that there was no chance of an explosion and that two arming mechanisms had not activated. > A United State…

Hacker News downvotes anything that makes them feel unsafe

Or are there groups that upvote/downvote content to groom a certain narrative?

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

#73

Post by pixl97 »

cj wrote: post #14
thfuran wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a really bad take. The difficulty of making many categories of lies is radically decreasing. That it has long been possible for a well-funded vfx team to do something doesn't mean nothing will change when it becomes possible for anyone with a cellphone and five minutes of free time to do the same thing.

> anyone with a cellphone and five minutes of free time One could argue that this will be a good thing because deep fakes will be so prevalent (e.g. kids making videos of their parents saying and doing funny things) that the default assumption is that everything is fake until proven not fake.

> default assumption is that everything is fake until proven not fake.

This is what it's like living under an authoritarian government. "Of course the government is lying", "Of course the politician is lying", "Of course my neighbor is lying", "Of course the company is providing me with a fraudulent product"

This eventually turns into a kind of learned helplessness and is how you create a crapsack nation/world. "Everything is bad, so there is no reason I should do anything good"

I can promise you that you won't enjoy this world we're creating if you don't live in an authoritarian shithole already.

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

#74

Post by vuln »

Ialdaboth wrote: post #63
stainablesteel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this story writes itself like a children's book "beware of false information" said the people who keep the biggest secrets

By the way, notice how they pivoted from "false information" to "misinformation" years ago. It's transparently hilarious.

Don’t forget “disinformation”

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

#75

Post by wredue »

nicce wrote: post #32
wojciechpolak wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All official materials should primarily be posted on the original authors' websites and signed using asymmetric cryptography. Furthermore, new open standards should be established to enable the presentation of such signatures/verification on well-known platforms like YouTube, FB, etc. These platforms should always provide a clear reference to the original material along with its digital signature. For example, when w…

There are already coming cameras which sign the data on the fly with help of hardware security modules. Only that can be truly verifiable. Adding signature after recording works to certain degree, but it still does not guarantee that the content is what the camera saw.

Can’t wait for the first political misstep being blamed on leaked keys.

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

#76

Post by trust_bt_verify »

pessimizer wrote: post #62
rtkwe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This again? They pointed out posts they believed violated places like Twitter's TOS and in the case of Twitter most of the time Twitter left them up and took no action against the material. A pretty shoddy censorship campaign in my opinion, it was blown up by Elon and the partisan actors he released the data to to support a political point they've been griping about for ages.

> This again? You're talking about something that has been ruled by two courts as a massive first amendment violation, and is heading to the Supreme Court (if they even want it), as if it were a conspiracy theory. And what political point are you even talking about, where do you learn to use this tone about serious issues, and why the fixation on celebrities like Musk?

“ A federal district court in California dismissed the claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. The court of appeals ruled that although “it is possible to draw a causal line from the OEC’s flagging of the November 12th post to O’Handley’s suspension,” there was no “state action” for O’Handley to challenge under the First Amendment. California certainly exercised governmental authority when it flagged O’Handley’s tweet, the 9th Circuit reasoned, but it took no explicit action restricting his speech. And although Twitter did limit O’Handley’s speech, the court explained, it was following its own rules, rather than acting on the state’s behalf.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/08/once-suspended-twitter-us...

This case?

Where did _you_ learn this tone of victimization when discussion issues with no references? I assume Musk was brought up as he has framed this issue in the same way the GP commenter did and he is the current owner of the company in question. You can dismiss that as celebrity fixation but it only undermines your own comment.

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

#77

Post by vorpalhex »

rtkwe wrote: post #49
tomohawk wrote: post #42

These are some of the very same government entities that were caught working with their surrogates at social media companies to censor speech that they declared misinformation. In their vernacular, misinformation may be 100% true information that goes against the narrative that they want to promote.

This again? They pointed out posts they believed violated places like Twitter's TOS and in the case of Twitter most of the time Twitter left them up and took no action against the material. A pretty shoddy censorship campaign in my opinion, it was blown up by Elon and the partisan actors he released the data to to support a political point they've been griping about for ages.

The legal issue is that they used the authority of the Whitehouse to do a "comply or there will be consequences".

We've all sat through various crappy powerpoints on ethics. That is plain and simple coercion. That's a first amendment issue and prohibited.

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

#78

Post by sixothree »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #70
ejb999 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>It's pretty easy to see that the photo is a hoax, but many news outlets didn't notice and ran the story anyway. More likely: many news outlets didn't CARE and ran the story anyway.

This is the problem with for-profit news outlets, they can't afford not to run the story that others are. State-run news outlets is also not good.

NPR seems to be one of the most reliable sources in America.

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

#79

Post by dudefeliciano »

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…

I always have to think of the Wu Ming Foundation/former Luther Blisset collective and their fake news/LARPing missions[1] that showed how easy it was to fool major news outlets back in the 90s. Too bad that now those same techniques have been weaponized with great success.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Blissett_(pseudonym)#Li...

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

#80

Post by hhmc »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #70
ejb999 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>It's pretty easy to see that the photo is a hoax, but many news outlets didn't notice and ran the story anyway. More likely: many news outlets didn't CARE and ran the story anyway.

This is the problem with for-profit news outlets, they can't afford not to run the story that others are. State-run news outlets is also not good.

What's the solution? A powerful enough regulatory framework to fine (or otherwise punish) proven misinformation?

Even then it's probably hard to prove that insufficient checking was performed at publication time

Post reply on HN