3 ms·
> Dr Eddy Borges Rey - a lecturer in media and technology at the University of Stirling - was horrified by the development. > "It seems that Adobe's programmer
by tekacs 10y ago
> Dr Eddy Borges Rey - a lecturer in media and technology at the University of Stirling - was horrified by the development.
> "It seems that Adobe's programmers were swept along with the excitement of creating something as innovative as a voice manipulator, and ignored the ethical dilemmas brought up by its potential misuse," he told the BBC.
> "Inadvertently, in its quest to create software to manipulate digital media, Adobe has [already] drastically changed the way we engage with evidential material such as photographs.
> "This makes it hard for lawyers, journalists, and other professionals who use digital media as evidence.
I find this /reaction/ horrifying - Adobe isn't invalidating evidence so much as they are making the public infinitely more aware (as a sibling commenter points out) that evidence may already be compromised.
If Adobe doesn't do this, actors who care enough to forge evidence surely will, so better that the public trust in voice evidence collapse than people mistakenly continue to believe in it. :@
- Waterluvian 10y agoIt's such a tired argument. Should we be horrified that humans decided to invent and evolve technologies that lead to anything possibly harmful?
- TeMPOraL 10y agoEspecially that any technology that's even remotely useful for something can be (and is) used for harmful things.
- kakarot 10y agoExactly! This is one of those cases where "Well someone is gonna do it" applies. And they may as well also try to cement themselves into the workflow. It's a very strategic move.
- nohuck13 10y agoThe article would be pretty boring as "cool new tech does stuff". Someone in the world can be found to attack the short-sighted programmers of ${technology} for not seeing the moral implications! So great! Let's get that guy, and make the article be about the conflict over this new _unreleased demo technology_ that really is pretty benign and perhaps beneficial in giving everyone some good info about where the state of the art stands, so we can avoid being blindsided by malicious actors. And let's make the article be about outrage instead. This is, um, not my favorite journalistic device. Edited