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

A new way to detect ‘deepfake’ picture editing

lightbluetouchpaper.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–92 of 92 posts

Re: A new way to detect ‘deepfake’ picture editing

#91

Post by uuidgen »

foobar33333 wrote: post #85
uuidgen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every camera will have a unique key so a single key leaked is still no issue. It's easy to maintain a blacklist - similarly how CRLs work.

So now we are essentially bricking the devices of real users? Without doing anything meaningful to real attackers who just grab the next key out of their list of 10 million stolen from insecure androids.

What? No. The signature needs to be added by the image sensor as it gathers data.

It shouldn't be easy to extract it and that's it. It's even less difficult than keeping the DVD/Blueray keys secure because each device has a separate key, so if a line of devices gets compromised easily it's easy to spot.

Then you put a legal framework around what can be presented by media, the requirement for signature collection and so. And one of problems with photo/video authenticity is essentially solved.

Re: A new way to detect ‘deepfake’ picture editing

#92

Post by mojomark »

barbazoo wrote: post #71
Extigy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just sign the content with a digital signature?

You mean devices could sign the images they create and then wherever someone publishes the picture you'd be able to validate the signature using that device's (published somewhere) public key? That would be cool indeed. Except it wouldn't change anything. Facebook doesn't care about fakes and people wouldn't care whether the picture someone shared hasn't been tampered. Also whoever manipulated the picture could just…

Some people do care about authenticity though, hence the genesis of the OP's work to try and authenticate and it's why people still read news papers vice trusting their clickbait Google "news" feed. I'm just saying that I'd trust some encryption cert (whatever it is) traced back to a known more reputable source (say Financial Times and the like) than an algorithm that is just guessing that a photo/video is an un-altered genuine original vice a fake.

The challenge is establishing an author's credibility in the first place. If I trace a cert back to joe schmo off the street or some empty front business, then I'd probably not trust the content.

Post reply on HN