3 ms·

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 comm

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

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