7 ms·

What I find most worrying is the 2nd order consequence of not being able to trust pictures anymore.

trianglem 7y ago
I feel like that ship sailed a while ago with Photoshop being around. I think the problem now is you can do the same with videos and the technology is more commoditized so you don’t have to be very knowledgeable to do these things.
- panarky 7y ago
  People predicted that Photoshop was the end of truth, that journalism could no longer be trusted, that photographic evidence at criminal trials would be inadmissible. None of that actually happened because people learned to be skeptical, and to care about who took the photo, the chain of custody, and the controls to prevent digital alteration. Maybe we need something similar but more rigorous for video. The camera itself could encode a PKI signature in every frame of the original. If subsequent edits preserve frames as is, then the viewer could determine how many frames were cut or duplicated. If subsequent edits crop, recolor or otherwise alter the frames, that editor could encode its own digital signature so the viewer could judge how much to trust their edits.
  - seriousaccount 7y ago
    I don't agree with your assessment. People didn't learn to be skeptical most of the time. We've seen what fake news does to people's opinions; debunking a video as fake after it was viewed by a large group of people is enough to do serious damage to people's viewpoints.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    > Maybe we need something similar but more rigorous for video. Is there evidence that deepfake videos will be worse than photos? My (naive) sense is that even for an AI, editing a photo will always be easier than editing a video with sound. If Photoshop and deep-fake images aren't a problem, shouldn't we be less concerned about video?
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    >>None of that actually happened because people learned to be skeptical, and to care about who took the photo, the chain of custody, and the controls to prevent digital alteration. This may be true in courts of law, but it absolutely is not when it comes to general public consumption of pictures.
    - larnmar 7y ago
      Can you think of some examples of photoshopped pictures which have changed history in significant ways?
  - antielectronite 7y ago
    It's interesting is how much better people have gotten at identifying doctored pictures overtime. The 9/11 Tourist Guy picture that duped a lot of people 18 years ago looks like a ridiculous MS paint edit today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourist_guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourist_guy
cuu508 7y ago
A picture is worth a thousand words. Likewise, a deepfake is worth a thousand lies.
lm28469 7y ago
https://www.history.com/news/josef-stalin-great-purge-photo-retouching https://www.history.com/news/josef-stalin-great-purge-photo-... Photo editing has been used pretty much since the beginning of mainstream photography. You should never "trust" pictures for anything serious if you don't have absolute trust in the source.
- simias 7y ago
  I don't completely agree, good quality photo editing, even in this day and age, is not that mainstream. You need a decent amount of skill to edit a good quality picture in a way that won't look obviously fake. Pre-digital-photography it was only possible for skilled people with a significant amount of resources (like the Soviet government, no doubt). Besides it's one thing to edit a still image and a whole other to forge a long video, complete with audio. Look at those movies these past few years using 3D models to insert younger versions of actors (Terminator and Star Wars come to mind). They must have invested millions into it, they have very talented artists and it's pretty good but it's still quite easy to spot the fakeness of it.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Pre-digital it may have been destined for old-school newspaper pictures with the varying density dots - monochrome of course. That would mask a multitude of sins and shoddy brushwork. The Daily Mail was at it from around WW1, perhaps earlier. Though their main WW1 fake was, of course, the cadaver factories. Surprisingly the Times bought that tale too.
glglwty 7y ago
Why don't cameras sign the photos at sensor?
- pixl97 7y ago
  And why dont I hack the key out of the encryption chip and make as many shops as I like? And why doesn't the government keep track of the cameras and security keys so they can trace back any images they do not approve of?

I feel like that ship sailed a while ago with Photoshop being around. I think the problem now is you can do the same with videos and the technology is more commoditized so you don’t have to be very knowledgeable to do these things.

panarky 7y ago
People predicted that Photoshop was the end of truth, that journalism could no longer be trusted, that photographic evidence at criminal trials would be inadmissible. None of that actually happened because people learned to be skeptical, and to care about who took the photo, the chain of custody, and the controls to prevent digital alteration. Maybe we need something similar but more rigorous for video. The camera itself could encode a PKI signature in every frame of the original. If subsequent edits preserve frames as is, then the viewer could determine how many frames were cut or duplicated. If subsequent edits crop, recolor or otherwise alter the frames, that editor could encode its own digital signature so the viewer could judge how much to trust their edits.
- seriousaccount 7y ago
  I don't agree with your assessment. People didn't learn to be skeptical most of the time. We've seen what fake news does to people's opinions; debunking a video as fake after it was viewed by a large group of people is enough to do serious damage to people's viewpoints.
- danShumway 7y ago
  > Maybe we need something similar but more rigorous for video. Is there evidence that deepfake videos will be worse than photos? My (naive) sense is that even for an AI, editing a photo will always be easier than editing a video with sound. If Photoshop and deep-fake images aren't a problem, shouldn't we be less concerned about video?
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  >>None of that actually happened because people learned to be skeptical, and to care about who took the photo, the chain of custody, and the controls to prevent digital alteration. This may be true in courts of law, but it absolutely is not when it comes to general public consumption of pictures.
  - larnmar 7y ago
    Can you think of some examples of photoshopped pictures which have changed history in significant ways?
- antielectronite 7y ago
  It's interesting is how much better people have gotten at identifying doctored pictures overtime. The 9/11 Tourist Guy picture that duped a lot of people 18 years ago looks like a ridiculous MS paint edit today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourist_guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourist_guy

cuu508 7y ago

A picture is worth a thousand words. Likewise, a deepfake is worth a thousand lies.

lm28469 7y ago

https://www.history.com/news/josef-stalin-great-purge-photo-retouching https://www.history.com/news/josef-stalin-great-purge-photo-... Photo editing has been used pretty much since the beginning of mainstream photography. You should never "trust" pictures for anything serious if you don't have absolute trust in the source.

simias 7y ago
I don't completely agree, good quality photo editing, even in this day and age, is not that mainstream. You need a decent amount of skill to edit a good quality picture in a way that won't look obviously fake. Pre-digital-photography it was only possible for skilled people with a significant amount of resources (like the Soviet government, no doubt). Besides it's one thing to edit a still image and a whole other to forge a long video, complete with audio. Look at those movies these past few years using 3D models to insert younger versions of actors (Terminator and Star Wars come to mind). They must have invested millions into it, they have very talented artists and it's pretty good but it's still quite easy to spot the fakeness of it.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Pre-digital it may have been destined for old-school newspaper pictures with the varying density dots - monochrome of course. That would mask a multitude of sins and shoddy brushwork. The Daily Mail was at it from around WW1, perhaps earlier. Though their main WW1 fake was, of course, the cadaver factories. Surprisingly the Times bought that tale too.

glglwty 7y ago

Why don't cameras sign the photos at sensor?

pixl97 7y ago
And why dont I hack the key out of the encryption chip and make as many shops as I like? And why doesn't the government keep track of the cameras and security keys so they can trace back any images they do not approve of?