3 ms·

Your thoughts are very interesting, but I'm afraid remote attestation may not be enough. Processor instructions aren't sufficient as verification. Suppose I u

Your thoughts are very interesting, but I'm afraid remote attestation may not be enough. Processor instructions aren't sufficient as verification. Suppose I use AI to create a deepfake, then open up my phone, grab the wire which goes from the camera to the microprocessor, and rewire it so it goes from an Arduino to the microprocessor. Then I program the Arduino to send a signal to the microprocessor just like the one my camera would send to the microprocessor, had the camera just taken my deepfake as a photo. I suppose a chip inside of the camera (in a tamper-resistant housing that self-destructs if you attempt disassembly) which signs the photo before sending it to the microprocessor could be sufficient in practice. Especially if the provider of the key infrastructure embeds a separate key in every camera, and monitors for abuse. Anyway who is gonna build this? Perhaps Google could start selling special cameras to journalists, such that if the photos in a story on Google News were taken using that camera, the story in Google News gets a special checkmark next to it?

mrshadowgoose 4y ago
It wasn't elaborated on in the original comment, but yes you're absolutely correct, the imaging sensor itself would also need to be part of the cryptographic chain-of-trust. This is likely the most crucial part of such a system, as all the other hardware aspects are already starting to become generally available. > Anyway who is gonna build this? If and when specialized imaging sensors become available, I don't see this being a huge lift. One wouldn't even need purpose-built cameras for all but the most high-assurance recording requirements. Remote attestation and trusted code execution is already being incorporated into most newer devices. Bringing it all together would mostly be a software problem at that point. Of course, there would also need to be a value proposition to justify any kind of work towards this. I personally see this as an inevitability given the frightening pace of progress in the ML field, and the increasing public concern over things like deepfakes. Thank you for your comments!
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  You could start a startup building the specialized imaging sensors, with the aim of being acquired by $bigtech so they can tell congress "yes we are doing something about deepfakes" and eventually tell consumers "you can tell that photos taken by our devices/posted to our site are real, the other sites are full of BS" I don't see how it all comes together without a partnership between the tech companies that display media (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and the tech companies that provide hardware (Apple, Google, Samsung, etc.) Maybe what's needed is to go through a nonprofit like the Partnership on AI. Google is an interesting target because they are basically the only company that's both a media displayer and a hardware provider. If Android devices get a "verified non-deepfake" capability before Apple devices get it, I could see that as being a significant leg up for Android actually. It encroaches on Apple's traditional branding of "we make products for important people". I wonder if the Titan M has capabilities which could be leveraged. https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/10/building-titan-better-security-through.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/10/building-t... Google would probably sell loads of Pixel phones if it upranked "verified non-deepfake" Youtube videos recorded using Pixel cameras & microphones. Every aspiring Youtube star would know to record using a Pixel. The deepfake thing is a pretty good excuse to defend against an antitrust lawsuit, especially if Google can say that the capability will eventually roll out to competing hardware.

mrshadowgoose 4y ago

It wasn't elaborated on in the original comment, but yes you're absolutely correct, the imaging sensor itself would also need to be part of the cryptographic chain-of-trust. This is likely the most crucial part of such a system, as all the other hardware aspects are already starting to become generally available. > Anyway who is gonna build this? If and when specialized imaging sensors become available, I don't see this being a huge lift. One wouldn't even need purpose-built cameras for all but the most high-assurance recording requirements. Remote attestation and trusted code execution is already being incorporated into most newer devices. Bringing it all together would mostly be a software problem at that point. Of course, there would also need to be a value proposition to justify any kind of work towards this. I personally see this as an inevitability given the frightening pace of progress in the ML field, and the increasing public concern over things like deepfakes. Thank you for your comments!

ShredKazoo 4y ago
You could start a startup building the specialized imaging sensors, with the aim of being acquired by $bigtech so they can tell congress "yes we are doing something about deepfakes" and eventually tell consumers "you can tell that photos taken by our devices/posted to our site are real, the other sites are full of BS" I don't see how it all comes together without a partnership between the tech companies that display media (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and the tech companies that provide hardware (Apple, Google, Samsung, etc.) Maybe what's needed is to go through a nonprofit like the Partnership on AI. Google is an interesting target because they are basically the only company that's both a media displayer and a hardware provider. If Android devices get a "verified non-deepfake" capability before Apple devices get it, I could see that as being a significant leg up for Android actually. It encroaches on Apple's traditional branding of "we make products for important people". I wonder if the Titan M has capabilities which could be leveraged. https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/10/building-titan-better-security-through.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/10/building-t... Google would probably sell loads of Pixel phones if it upranked "verified non-deepfake" Youtube videos recorded using Pixel cameras & microphones. Every aspiring Youtube star would know to record using a Pixel. The deepfake thing is a pretty good excuse to defend against an antitrust lawsuit, especially if Google can say that the capability will eventually roll out to competing hardware.