5 ms·

No, we are merely returning to the pre-photography state of things where a mere printed image is not sufficient evidence for anything.

tass 2y ago
There goes the dashcam industry…
- barbazoo 2y ago
  You're being downvoted but I think the comment raises a good question. what will happen when someone gets accused of doctoring their dashcam footage? Or any footage used for evidence.
  - tass 2y ago
    I wasn’t really kidding with my comment. I just recently used camera footage as part of an accident claim and the assessor immediately said “that wasn’t your fault, we take responsibility on behalf of the driver”. In a few years time when (if) faking realistic footage becomes trivial, I suspect this kind of video will have a much, much higher level of scrutiny or only be accepted from certain sources such as government owned traffic cameras.
hx8 2y ago
True, an image, audio clip, or video is not enough evidence to establish truth. We still need a way to establish truth. It's important for security cameras, for politics, and for public figures. Here are some things we could start looking into. * Cameras that sign their output. Yes, this camera caught this video, and it hasn't been modified. This is a must for recordings being used in court evidence IMO. Otherwise framing a crime is as easy as a few deep fakes and planting some DNA or fingerprints at the scene of the crime. * People digitally signing pictures/audio/videos of them. Even if they digitally modified the data it shows that they consent to having their image associated with that message. It reduces the strength of the attack vector of deep fake videos for reputation sabotage. * Malicious content source detection and flagging. Think email spam filter type tagging of fake content. Community notes on X would be another good example. * Digital manipulation detection. I'm less than hopeful this will be the way in the long term, but could be used to disprove some fraud.
- alchemist1e9 2y ago
  Blockchains can be used for cryptography time-stamping. I’ve always had a suspicion that governments and large companies would prefer a world without hard cryptographic proofs. After wikileaks they noticed DKIM can cause them major blowback. Somehow general public isn’t aware all the emails were proven authentic with DKIM signatures and even in fairly educated circles people believe the “emails were fake” but it’s not actually possible.
  - PeterisP 2y ago
    Quite the opposite, governments and large companies even explicitly run services for digital timestamping of documents - if I wanted to potentially assert some facts in court, I'd definitely prefer having that e-document with a timestamp notarized from my local government service instead of Bitcoin, because while the cryptography is the same, it would be much simpler from the practical legal perspective, requiring less time and effort and cost to get the court to accept that.
- alex_suzuki 2y ago
  Signing is great, but the hard part is managing keys and trust.
- djmips 2y ago
  Every image is an NFT?
BobaFloutist 2y ago
Pre-photography it at least took effort, practice, and time, to draw something convincing. Any skill with that much of a barrier to entry kind of automatically reduces the ability to be anonymous. And we didn't have the ability to instantaneously distribute images world-wide.
anigbrowl 2y ago
merely You say this as if it were not a big deal, but losing a century's worth of authentication infrastructure/practises is a Bad Thing which will have large negative externalities.
- throw__away7391 2y ago
  It isn't really though. It has been technical possible to convincingly doctor photos for some time already, gradually getting easier, cheaper, and faster with time for decades, and even now the currently available tech has limitations and the full change is not going to happen overnight.

tass 2y ago

There goes the dashcam industry…

barbazoo 2y ago
You're being downvoted but I think the comment raises a good question. what will happen when someone gets accused of doctoring their dashcam footage? Or any footage used for evidence.
- tass 2y ago
  I wasn’t really kidding with my comment. I just recently used camera footage as part of an accident claim and the assessor immediately said “that wasn’t your fault, we take responsibility on behalf of the driver”. In a few years time when (if) faking realistic footage becomes trivial, I suspect this kind of video will have a much, much higher level of scrutiny or only be accepted from certain sources such as government owned traffic cameras.

hx8 2y ago

True, an image, audio clip, or video is not enough evidence to establish truth. We still need a way to establish truth. It's important for security cameras, for politics, and for public figures. Here are some things we could start looking into. * Cameras that sign their output. Yes, this camera caught this video, and it hasn't been modified. This is a must for recordings being used in court evidence IMO. Otherwise framing a crime is as easy as a few deep fakes and planting some DNA or fingerprints at the scene of the crime. * People digitally signing pictures/audio/videos of them. Even if they digitally modified the data it shows that they consent to having their image associated with that message. It reduces the strength of the attack vector of deep fake videos for reputation sabotage. * Malicious content source detection and flagging. Think email spam filter type tagging of fake content. Community notes on X would be another good example. * Digital manipulation detection. I'm less than hopeful this will be the way in the long term, but could be used to disprove some fraud.

alchemist1e9 2y ago
Blockchains can be used for cryptography time-stamping. I’ve always had a suspicion that governments and large companies would prefer a world without hard cryptographic proofs. After wikileaks they noticed DKIM can cause them major blowback. Somehow general public isn’t aware all the emails were proven authentic with DKIM signatures and even in fairly educated circles people believe the “emails were fake” but it’s not actually possible.
- PeterisP 2y ago
  Quite the opposite, governments and large companies even explicitly run services for digital timestamping of documents - if I wanted to potentially assert some facts in court, I'd definitely prefer having that e-document with a timestamp notarized from my local government service instead of Bitcoin, because while the cryptography is the same, it would be much simpler from the practical legal perspective, requiring less time and effort and cost to get the court to accept that.
alex_suzuki 2y ago
Signing is great, but the hard part is managing keys and trust.
djmips 2y ago
Every image is an NFT?

BobaFloutist 2y ago

Pre-photography it at least took effort, practice, and time, to draw something convincing. Any skill with that much of a barrier to entry kind of automatically reduces the ability to be anonymous. And we didn't have the ability to instantaneously distribute images world-wide.

anigbrowl 2y ago

merely You say this as if it were not a big deal, but losing a century's worth of authentication infrastructure/practises is a Bad Thing which will have large negative externalities.

throw__away7391 2y ago
It isn't really though. It has been technical possible to convincingly doctor photos for some time already, gradually getting easier, cheaper, and faster with time for decades, and even now the currently available tech has limitations and the full change is not going to happen overnight.