3 ms·

One possibility would be for all recording devices to immediately upload checksums of their recorded footage to multiple trusted online authorities upon recordi

One possibility would be for all recording devices to immediately upload checksums of their recorded footage to multiple trusted online authorities upon recording. If someone presents altered footage, you can show that the checksum of the original was uploaded earlier. This of course only covers certain cases. If the deepfake is crafted from scratch or from a camera that doesn't upload its checksums, and the incentive for the creation of the deepfake arises before the supposed time the deepfake takes place, then this method won't be of use.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Opt out and it's an invasion of privacy, opt in and nobody does and it isn't applicable to 99% of authentic footage. And subject to attack. Don't want to be recorded? Jam wireless so they can't have anyone sign their videos, then claim they're fake. Also doesn't work for state actors. A country can compromise three separate signing authorities.
- Asraelite 6y ago
  I don't quite understand how it would be an invasion of privacy. All that's needed is a checksum paired with a timestamp, you don't even need to identify yourself. There is no way anyone could extract any meaningful information out of that without the footage. And you can just upload it to ten different authorities in ten different jurisdictions, or even a hundred if you're paranoid. States are powerful but they're not _that_ powerful. It's the same principle that makes Tor work. I agree jamming wireless could be an issue, but only for prosecution. In the case of proving innocence it's a moot point because this checksum system only covers after-the-fact fabrication anyway.
  - krageon 6y ago
    > you don't even need to identify yourself. They'd also have logged the IP, which combined with a time will probably significantly narrow down the individual in question if you can also access telco records. Especially if inadvertently more information is also documented (such as a user agent). > It's the same principle that makes Tor work. Tor doesn't work for this kind of problem, unless you are significantly more technically savvy (and even then...) then the average smartphone user.
    - Asraelite 6y ago
      I think you missed the point regarding Tor. I mean that for Tor to be compromised, a state actor would need to compromise on the order of dozens to hundreds of nodes simultaneously. The fact that Tor works shows that they are unable to do this, and so they would also be unable to simultaneously compromise dozens of checksum authorities. Nothing to do with using Tor for uploading checksums, I was just using it as an example.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Opt out and it's an invasion of privacy, opt in and nobody does and it isn't applicable to 99% of authentic footage. And subject to attack. Don't want to be recorded? Jam wireless so they can't have anyone sign their videos, then claim they're fake. Also doesn't work for state actors. A country can compromise three separate signing authorities.

Asraelite 6y ago
I don't quite understand how it would be an invasion of privacy. All that's needed is a checksum paired with a timestamp, you don't even need to identify yourself. There is no way anyone could extract any meaningful information out of that without the footage. And you can just upload it to ten different authorities in ten different jurisdictions, or even a hundred if you're paranoid. States are powerful but they're not _that_ powerful. It's the same principle that makes Tor work. I agree jamming wireless could be an issue, but only for prosecution. In the case of proving innocence it's a moot point because this checksum system only covers after-the-fact fabrication anyway.
- krageon 6y ago
  > you don't even need to identify yourself. They'd also have logged the IP, which combined with a time will probably significantly narrow down the individual in question if you can also access telco records. Especially if inadvertently more information is also documented (such as a user agent). > It's the same principle that makes Tor work. Tor doesn't work for this kind of problem, unless you are significantly more technically savvy (and even then...) then the average smartphone user.
  - Asraelite 6y ago
    I think you missed the point regarding Tor. I mean that for Tor to be compromised, a state actor would need to compromise on the order of dozens to hundreds of nodes simultaneously. The fact that Tor works shows that they are unable to do this, and so they would also be unable to simultaneously compromise dozens of checksum authorities. Nothing to do with using Tor for uploading checksums, I was just using it as an example.