5 ms·

Ignoring how little sense it makes to say spoken word would be... digitally signed??? We've been at the point where a determined amateur could learn the skills

Ignoring how little sense it makes to say spoken word would be... digitally signed??? We've been at the point where a determined amateur could learn the skills to handcraft a false statement from a political figure. The content is not the issue, the trust of that content is. (In theory) the more authoritative the source, the more they'll require to treat a statement as real. Right now you could get a good impersonator to say something stupid and send it to one of those half-trying tabloids and they'd run it even if they knew it was fake... On the other hand a place like the NY Times might require more meat to the story, how did you get it, what was the chain of custody, etc.

wswope 5y ago
The OP means cryptographically signed for proof of provenance, not bundled with a scanned copy of a signature.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  Oh trust me I know... and it's more ridiculous than bundling a scanned copy of a signature, and at best only as functional as that!
  - wswope 5y ago
    I’m not trying to @ you here, but… are you sure you really know? Cryptographic signatures offer gold-standard, definitive proof of authenticity/non-repudiation. “Trust of content”, as you put it, is the problem they solve.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      - wswope 5y ago
        Why so aggressive? Including signatures as a matter of policy on all public communiques from a government agency would be useful for validating legitimacy, as anything deepfaked (i.e. without a signature) would immediately be called into question.
        BoorishBears 5y ago
        If you start a comment with patronzing bullshit: "I’m not trying to @ you here, but… are you sure you really know? Don't be shocked when someone gets annoyed. - And the level of naievte in your reply... You think someone is going to deepfake a public communique, are you joking? Sure, deepfake a press conference that no one can corroborate and everyone's just going to ignore the fact no one else saw it? The only place you have even the slightest chance of solving the actual problem, convincing people to trust the fake communication is stuff that's off the record. It's stuff that wouldn't be digital signed.

wswope 5y ago

The OP means cryptographically signed for proof of provenance, not bundled with a scanned copy of a signature.

BoorishBears 5y ago
Oh trust me I know... and it's more ridiculous than bundling a scanned copy of a signature, and at best only as functional as that!
- wswope 5y ago
  I’m not trying to @ you here, but… are you sure you really know? Cryptographic signatures offer gold-standard, definitive proof of authenticity/non-repudiation. “Trust of content”, as you put it, is the problem they solve.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    - wswope 5y ago
      Why so aggressive? Including signatures as a matter of policy on all public communiques from a government agency would be useful for validating legitimacy, as anything deepfaked (i.e. without a signature) would immediately be called into question.
      - BoorishBears 5y ago
        If you start a comment with patronzing bullshit: "I’m not trying to @ you here, but… are you sure you really know? Don't be shocked when someone gets annoyed. - And the level of naievte in your reply... You think someone is going to deepfake a public communique, are you joking? Sure, deepfake a press conference that no one can corroborate and everyone's just going to ignore the fact no one else saw it? The only place you have even the slightest chance of solving the actual problem, convincing people to trust the fake communication is stuff that's off the record. It's stuff that wouldn't be digital signed.