4 ms·
Both. It is an arms race, but it isn't hopeless. Think of it this way: we have fantastic technology for forging paper documents, but we still trust them. For
by Chaebixi 9y ago
Both. It is an arms race, but it isn't hopeless.
Think of it this way: we have fantastic technology for forging paper documents, but we still trust them. For instance, someone forged a memo to make a former president look bad close to an election, and they were tripped up because they weren't thinking about fonts [1].
Getting a forgery right is hard, and requires a lot of attention to detail. Technology will improve to add even more details that require careful attention, and maybe some cryptographic assurances. Maybe it won't be a world where anyone can spot a forgery, but there will still be experts who can.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
- ioquatix 9y agoPeople still use ink signatures for things. :/
- fishcolorbrick 9y agoHere's another one: https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/12/microsoft-calibri-pakistan-fontgate/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/12/microsoft-calibri-pakist...
- icc97 9y agoFascinating story, although it wasn't just the font, it was trying to pass off default output from 2004 Word as a 1973 typewriter. It seems all they did was run it through a copier a few times. So it was font, paragraph style, and superscript. If you're gonna frame a presidential candidate you should try harder.