4 ms·

That's true, but it also gives plausible deniability to accidentally taped evidence (e.g. mic left on before/after a press conference). The person making the ne

That's true, but it also gives plausible deniability to accidentally taped evidence (e.g. mic left on before/after a press conference). The person making the newsworthy statement, could always claim it is a deep fake. Of course, if reliable sources were present at the occasion, they could jointly sign a recording, but under other circumstances it could be fake. Another potential problem is producing fake confessions in e.g. criminal cases. The person who allegedly confesses would not sign the recordings, an the police's signatures are worthless if they are fabricated.

maxheadroom 7y ago
>Another potential problem is producing fake confessions in e.g. criminal cases. The person who allegedly confesses would not sign the recordings, and the police's signatures are worthless if they are fabricated. To look at it from the dystopian, draconian point-of-view, deep-fakes created and used by the local justice system[s] could be signed by a police officer (who's intent is "solving the case, no matter what"). No matter how many witnesses and experts that you throw at it, the court will almost always believe the officer (because of unjustly doted infallibility) and that deep-fake could cost someone their life. Just as other tools have been used for good and bad, on both sides of law enforcement, the probability lends to this equally be abused; especially, in areas where "south of the Mason-Dixon line" and "the south will rise again" are still parts of every-day parlance.
Merrill 7y ago
More than faking documents such as confessions, the government has a strong interest in faking documents to provide covers for detectives, legends for spies, etc. A robust crypto signature infrastructure that is widely used and immune to government meddling is not viewed favorably by certain sectors.

4 ms·

That's true, but it also gives plausible deniability to accidentally taped evidence (e.g. mic left on before/after a press conference). The person making the ne

by danieldk 7y ago

maxheadroom 7y ago
>Another potential problem is producing fake confessions in e.g. criminal cases. The person who allegedly confesses would not sign the recordings, and the police's signatures are worthless if they are fabricated. To look at it from the dystopian, draconian point-of-view, deep-fakes created and used by the local justice system[s] could be signed by a police officer (who's intent is "solving the case, no matter what"). No matter how many witnesses and experts that you throw at it, the court will almost always believe the officer (because of unjustly doted infallibility) and that deep-fake could cost someone their life. Just as other tools have been used for good and bad, on both sides of law enforcement, the probability lends to this equally be abused; especially, in areas where "south of the Mason-Dixon line" and "the south will rise again" are still parts of every-day parlance.
Merrill 7y ago
More than faking documents such as confessions, the government has a strong interest in faking documents to provide covers for detectives, legends for spies, etc. A robust crypto signature infrastructure that is widely used and immune to government meddling is not viewed favorably by certain sectors.