3 ms·

There is so much baseless hysteria about this subject. If society actually cared about this issue (spoiler, it doesn't), we already have all the required crypt

There is so much baseless hysteria about this subject. If society actually cared about this issue (spoiler, it doesn't), we already have all the required cryptographic tools (PKI, trusted timestamping, remote attestation) to create/record verifiably sourced content. Nobody really cares though. But people sure do like to whine about it.

bandrami 3y ago
"Nobody cares" is the important part. The most recent X-Files reboot did an episode on this. The age of conspiracies is over; governments don't have to kill people to protect secrets because they can just dump them in public and nobody has any idea what to believe anymore.
- busterarm 3y ago
  It's not that people don't know what to believe. They'll just believe what already confirms their worldview. Indoctrinating children is the battleground. Kind of always has been though.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Does this mean that the age of conspiracies is over, or just beginning? In the original X-Files the little group of hackers was framed as an eccentric and motley crew of misfits. And in terms of conspiratorial thought in the past (or at least the perception of it), that wasn't entirely inaccurate. But now? Decades of lies, conspiracies, and misdeeds have created the scenario you're alluding to. Public trust in the government peaked in the JFK era, at 77%. Today? It's at 16% [1] and trending to the single digits. The overwhelming majority no longer trust by default, but this doesn't mean they have no opinion on what the truth may be. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/public-trust-in-government-1958-2023/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/public-trust...
ironmagma 3y ago
There may be other reasons besides "they don't care". For instance, it's pretty dubious to say "they don't care" about the results of an election. But we still don't use encryption or really crypto at all for election results for reasons like logistics.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Logistics, and the hard constraint that we can collect the votes without being able to tie a distinct vote to a distinct individual. That last part puts some hard limits on what we can use for validation.
  - busterarm 3y ago
    Hint, it's not biometrics.
hanniabu 3y ago
> Nobody really cares though You've come full circle and pointed out the exact problem
13years 3y ago
> But people sure do like to whine about it. That is the minority of people who comprehend what is happening stating their observations. Cryptography has been proposed, but implementation details are problematic. There are still methods of subversion, but they do get harder. The other issue is that having every hardware recording device in existence implement cryptographic capabilities will also result in a regulation battle more likely to result in DRM state controlled devices.
huytersd 3y ago
Nobody cares because atleast for entertainment, no one cares as long as the end result is good.
croes 3y ago
How do cryptographic tools help against fake imagery?
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  They allow people generating fake images to sign them so that people believe they are human-generated. Oh, sorry. I meant "They allow independent sources of truth to do the meticulous work of validating the pedigree of creations, so that with their cryptographically-secured seal you can be confident a human originated the content and a human authenticated it. Only after such work is done would a work be cryptographically signed as authentic." You know, just like you can always trust the presence of an SSL certificate means a site is who they say they are. /s
  - mrshadowgoose 3y ago
    Hmmm, how does "trusted timestamping" and "remote attestation" fit into your assumption?
- mrshadowgoose 3y ago
  Trusted hardware running remotely-attested trusted software can capture imagery that can be highly assured to be real. Trusted timestamping, when correctly implemented, completely prevents the generation of imagery after-the-fact. Any false imagery would need to be pre-prepared prior to an event in time, or generated in real time. And a trusted device would need to be exploited to "record" it. PKI allows individuals/organizations/governments to cryptographically associate their reputation with specific pieces of content. There will always be the possibility of exploitation of trusted hardware. Apple's eternal fight against the jailbreak scene is evidence of this. However, the combination of these techniques would go a long way towards making the production and distribution of fake imagery difficult. But, as already stated, the actual problem is societal. People don't really care that much, and enjoy living in their echo chambers.
- mattdesl 3y ago
  See “Using ZK Proofs to Fight Disinformation” https://medium.com/@boneh/using-zk-proofs-to-fight-disinformation-17e7d57fe52f https://medium.com/@boneh/using-zk-proofs-to-fight-disinform...

bandrami 3y ago

"Nobody cares" is the important part. The most recent X-Files reboot did an episode on this. The age of conspiracies is over; governments don't have to kill people to protect secrets because they can just dump them in public and nobody has any idea what to believe anymore.

busterarm 3y ago
It's not that people don't know what to believe. They'll just believe what already confirms their worldview. Indoctrinating children is the battleground. Kind of always has been though.
somenameforme 3y ago
Does this mean that the age of conspiracies is over, or just beginning? In the original X-Files the little group of hackers was framed as an eccentric and motley crew of misfits. And in terms of conspiratorial thought in the past (or at least the perception of it), that wasn't entirely inaccurate. But now? Decades of lies, conspiracies, and misdeeds have created the scenario you're alluding to. Public trust in the government peaked in the JFK era, at 77%. Today? It's at 16% [1] and trending to the single digits. The overwhelming majority no longer trust by default, but this doesn't mean they have no opinion on what the truth may be. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/public-trust-in-government-1958-2023/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/public-trust...

ironmagma 3y ago

There may be other reasons besides "they don't care". For instance, it's pretty dubious to say "they don't care" about the results of an election. But we still don't use encryption or really crypto at all for election results for reasons like logistics.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Logistics, and the hard constraint that we can collect the votes without being able to tie a distinct vote to a distinct individual. That last part puts some hard limits on what we can use for validation.
- busterarm 3y ago
  Hint, it's not biometrics.

hanniabu 3y ago

> Nobody really cares though You've come full circle and pointed out the exact problem

13years 3y ago

> But people sure do like to whine about it. That is the minority of people who comprehend what is happening stating their observations. Cryptography has been proposed, but implementation details are problematic. There are still methods of subversion, but they do get harder. The other issue is that having every hardware recording device in existence implement cryptographic capabilities will also result in a regulation battle more likely to result in DRM state controlled devices.

huytersd 3y ago

Nobody cares because atleast for entertainment, no one cares as long as the end result is good.

croes 3y ago

How do cryptographic tools help against fake imagery?

shadowgovt 3y ago
They allow people generating fake images to sign them so that people believe they are human-generated. Oh, sorry. I meant "They allow independent sources of truth to do the meticulous work of validating the pedigree of creations, so that with their cryptographically-secured seal you can be confident a human originated the content and a human authenticated it. Only after such work is done would a work be cryptographically signed as authentic." You know, just like you can always trust the presence of an SSL certificate means a site is who they say they are. /s
- mrshadowgoose 3y ago
  Hmmm, how does "trusted timestamping" and "remote attestation" fit into your assumption?
mrshadowgoose 3y ago
Trusted hardware running remotely-attested trusted software can capture imagery that can be highly assured to be real. Trusted timestamping, when correctly implemented, completely prevents the generation of imagery after-the-fact. Any false imagery would need to be pre-prepared prior to an event in time, or generated in real time. And a trusted device would need to be exploited to "record" it. PKI allows individuals/organizations/governments to cryptographically associate their reputation with specific pieces of content. There will always be the possibility of exploitation of trusted hardware. Apple's eternal fight against the jailbreak scene is evidence of this. However, the combination of these techniques would go a long way towards making the production and distribution of fake imagery difficult. But, as already stated, the actual problem is societal. People don't really care that much, and enjoy living in their echo chambers.
mattdesl 3y ago
See “Using ZK Proofs to Fight Disinformation” https://medium.com/@boneh/using-zk-proofs-to-fight-disinformation-17e7d57fe52f https://medium.com/@boneh/using-zk-proofs-to-fight-disinform...