3 ms·

To the people complaining that what you see is no longer believable: there is a way out: signatures. It is time to start pressuring public people to digitally s

To the people complaining that what you see is no longer believable: there is a way out: signatures. It is time to start pressuring public people to digitally sign whatever they say.

jcrei 5y ago
Hopefully this gains traction, but it can't be with a "dousign" type signature that has no legal validity. We should champion Qualified Electronic Signatures
Tepix 5y ago
Judging by the european vaccination certificates, noone ever verifies a signature. I know there are cameras that digitally sign the data. However, you hardly ever get to see raw footage. It is always edited.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> To the people complaining that what you see is no longer believable I don't understand the complain. It's a movie: what you saw never was believable. It's trickery by design. Everything you see as been spliced together from multiple takes, purposefully framed, lighted and colorized. It's all fake but in a way so culturally ingrained that people don't even notice the deceit anymore. You think this continuous action you are watching?
- sillyquiet 5y ago
  I could be wrong, but I think OP was speaking more about filmed things that purport to be real-life events (i.e., evidence), rather than cinema.
  - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
    But it's the same. I think that the fact that people are so scared of deep fakes show they are not critical enough of what they are already shown. Images lie all the time.
    - sillyquiet 5y ago
      Eh, maybe. People watching cinema "know" it's not real, even though propaganda is a thing I guess. Deepfakes won't alter anything with regard to that though, whether it's a deep-faked actor, a CGI monstrosity, or just a look-alike actor in makeup. although you are right about video 'evidence', editing, cuts, and carefully muted dialog can alter things to the point of being the opposite of what was being filmed - an unprovoked attack can become self-defense or vice-versa, etc. Again, deep-fakery is just another tool in that unsavory toolbox, not anything paradigm shifting.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    During then 2004 election, doctored photos of John Kerry at an anti-vietnam-war protest circulated widely. They were a simple cut-and-paste job. The world of "people will make fraudulent media to sell a narrative" has already been here for decades.
Kosirich 5y ago
What about signing normal photos for the purpose of stopping misuse.. the approach of "if a photo is not digitally signed by each person on the photo for this specific case, it is assumed that the photo use is not fair"?
jcims 5y ago
I think it would have to work through the camera industry to be effective, so the sensor actually includes signatures with the image data. Otherwise all of the 'hot mic' moments are going to be left unaddressed. Image formats could be updated with an 'original' layer so that if the news site wanted to crop or edit the content, the original would still be avaliable for comparison. Given all of the hardware design going into high speed hashing on asic, shouldn't be that hard to find a component to do the work.
650REDHAIR 5y ago
How would this work? Plenty of videos are candid or shot and released by a 3rd party. This could work for press releases and such, but not for videos with headlines like "CEO CAUGHT KICKING A BABY IN THE FACE" or "UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION: PRESIDENT ADMITS ALIENS ARE REAL".

To the people complaining that what you see is no longer believable: there is a way out: signatures. It is time to start pressuring public people to digitally sign whatever they say.

jcrei 5y ago

Hopefully this gains traction, but it can't be with a "dousign" type signature that has no legal validity. We should champion Qualified Electronic Signatures

Tepix 5y ago

Judging by the european vaccination certificates, noone ever verifies a signature. I know there are cameras that digitally sign the data. However, you hardly ever get to see raw footage. It is always edited.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago

> To the people complaining that what you see is no longer believable I don't understand the complain. It's a movie: what you saw never was believable. It's trickery by design. Everything you see as been spliced together from multiple takes, purposefully framed, lighted and colorized. It's all fake but in a way so culturally ingrained that people don't even notice the deceit anymore. You think this continuous action you are watching?

sillyquiet 5y ago
I could be wrong, but I think OP was speaking more about filmed things that purport to be real-life events (i.e., evidence), rather than cinema.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  But it's the same. I think that the fact that people are so scared of deep fakes show they are not critical enough of what they are already shown. Images lie all the time.
  - sillyquiet 5y ago
    Eh, maybe. People watching cinema "know" it's not real, even though propaganda is a thing I guess. Deepfakes won't alter anything with regard to that though, whether it's a deep-faked actor, a CGI monstrosity, or just a look-alike actor in makeup. although you are right about video 'evidence', editing, cuts, and carefully muted dialog can alter things to the point of being the opposite of what was being filmed - an unprovoked attack can become self-defense or vice-versa, etc. Again, deep-fakery is just another tool in that unsavory toolbox, not anything paradigm shifting.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  During then 2004 election, doctored photos of John Kerry at an anti-vietnam-war protest circulated widely. They were a simple cut-and-paste job. The world of "people will make fraudulent media to sell a narrative" has already been here for decades.

Kosirich 5y ago

What about signing normal photos for the purpose of stopping misuse.. the approach of "if a photo is not digitally signed by each person on the photo for this specific case, it is assumed that the photo use is not fair"?

jcims 5y ago

I think it would have to work through the camera industry to be effective, so the sensor actually includes signatures with the image data. Otherwise all of the 'hot mic' moments are going to be left unaddressed. Image formats could be updated with an 'original' layer so that if the news site wanted to crop or edit the content, the original would still be avaliable for comparison. Given all of the hardware design going into high speed hashing on asic, shouldn't be that hard to find a component to do the work.

650REDHAIR 5y ago

How would this work? Plenty of videos are candid or shot and released by a 3rd party. This could work for press releases and such, but not for videos with headlines like "CEO CAUGHT KICKING A BABY IN THE FACE" or "UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION: PRESIDENT ADMITS ALIENS ARE REAL".