Weapons of meme construction

[bernorange 8346]

Quote

Lawmakers and experts are sounding the alarm about "deepfakes," forged videos that look remarkably real, warning they will be the next phase in disinformation campaigns.

The manipulated videos make it difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction, as artificial intelligence technology produces fake content that looks increasingly real.

The issue has the attention of lawmakers from both parties on Capitol Hill.

“It is almost too late to sound the alarm before this technology is released — it has been unleashed … and now we are playing a bit of defense,” Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) told The Hill.

Asked whether this is the next phase of disinformation campaigns, Warner replied "Absolutely."

Experts say it is only a matter of time before advances in artificial intelligence technology and the proliferation of those tools allow any online user to create deepfakes.

“It is regarded by political and technology experts as the next weapon in the disinformation warfare,” Fabrice Pothier, senior advisor with the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity, told The Hill.

Pothier worries that technological advances will make it harder to detect false or doctored videos.

“I think it is probably going to be very hard to just use the human eye to distinguish something that is fake from something that is real,” he said.

Intelligence experts say the threat from deepfakes is immense and warn of potentially dangerous scenarios if the technology to create them is not reined in.

...

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/426148-washington-fears-new-threat-from-deepfake-videos

Damn photoshop, you scary!

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

24 minutes ago, bernorange said:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/426148-washington-fears-new-threat-from-deepfake-videos

Damn photoshop, you scary!

 

What if it gets so good that, for political reasons,  you can be convicted of crimes you did not commit?  "But I was hunting 20 miles away from the cabin where the body was found!"  "We have video of you running from the cabin, Mr. Smith."

Edited January 21, 2019 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Anastasis 23375]

Yes, but think of the bright side possibilities....

[Clackles 276]

I can’t wait for the Trump tweet linking this article when the pee tape gets released.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Maybe they can create a fake video where the ref throws a flag on the LA Rams defender for PI.

[workswithseed 2033]

Is this what Stalin used?

[atomheartbevo 89362]

So, hypothetically speaking, if one were to have a video from over 20 years ago, of them sleeping with an ex-gf’s mom who was in her late 40s or early 50s, who was a tall brunette, they could alter the video to make it look like they were banging Jaclyn Smith? And it would look real enough that their friends wouldn’t notice? And If necessary, they would be able to alter the voice and remove certain scars from the male participant so that the male participant’s current wife would not realize it was them if the video were found by and it could be passed it off as a friends tape, or even a commercial porno.  

Asking for a friend. 

[ndawg 1242]

If there are machine learning algorithms that can remove human-visible evidence of alteration, maybe there can also be machine learning algorithms that detect the deepfakes.

[bernorange 8346]

Analog film or it didn't happen

[atomheartbevo 89362]

7 minutes ago, ndawg said:

If there are machine learning algorithms that can remove human-visible evidence of alteration, maybe there can also be machine learning algorithms that detect the deepfakes.

I’ve cleaned up a few thousand photos over the past 15 years or so, from photos taken in the past 20 years, to photos going back to the 1860s.  Removed mold damage, tears, creases, even cleaned up/replaced small chunks of the photo being torn out (like a corner when it was torn from an album), pencil and pen marks/writing, contrast and color levels, etc.  The tools and hardware I have now can do in 30 seconds what used to take 4-5 minutes, and are much more automated.

10 or 15 years ago, if I cleaned up a photo and gave a copy to you, you could easily tell what I had altered if you looked at the layers or blew up the image, or at the very least, you could tell I had altered some things  

Within the last 5 years, it gets a lot tougher, as the software has improved substantially.  

But if I took an image from15, 10, or even 5 years ago, and uploaded it to Facebook, and then you downloaded it, thanks to the compression, resizing,etc, that happens when you upload photos to social media (they heavily compress to save bandwidth and space), you most likely couldn’t tell I had altered anything.  

Or to put it another way, and I’m oversimplifying, if I gave you a direct copy of my work, and you enlarged it or looked through the layers, you would see fuzziness or jaggedness, or other indicators of where I altered something (like removing a crease) in those areas that had been altered.  If I uploaded it to Facebook and you downloaded it, or if I heavily compressed it when exporting so I could email you a smaller copy, the whole photo would have a fuzziness/jaggedness all throughout the photo when enlarged, or at least enough to hide it.  

Same problem with video - compression when uploading it to various online sites, etc. makes it harder to determine where alterations are.  

If you had a team of animators though, and the budget you could make convincing fakes - Forrest Gump is 25 years old.

What it sounds like is happening is that the software has advanced enough to simplify and substantially speed things up for altering videos, to the point where the proverbial 300 pounder in his mom’s basement can crank these out on his own, on at least a small scale.  An actual organization devoted to this *cough Russians cough* could wreak havoc in a large primary. Unless you get the original, it will be very hard to determine fakes.  

And that’s assuming you could get copies of the original media.  Look at the altered images of Trump with longer fingers and slimmer body the WH has been releasing.  If people didn’t track down the originals, you’d never know it. 

[SquishMitten 10395]

22 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Yes, but think of the bright side possibilities....

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then it already exists. Google celebrity deepfakes.

[bernorange 8346]

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Negatives are truth

[Biff Tannen 45477]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’ve cleaned up a few thousand photos over the past 15 years or so, from photos taken in the past 20 years, to photos going back to the 1860s.  Removed mold damage, tears, creases, even cleaned up/replaced small chunks of the photo being torn out (like a corner when it was torn from an album), pencil and pen marks/writing, contrast and color levels, etc.  The tools and hardware I have now can do in 30 seconds what used to take 4-5 minutes, and are much more automated.

10 or 15 years ago, if I cleaned up a photo and gave a copy to you, you could easily tell what I had altered if you looked at the layers or blew up the image, or at the very least, you could tell I had altered some things  

Within the last 5 years, it gets a lot tougher, as the software has improved substantially.  

But if I took an image from15, 10, or even 5 years ago, and uploaded it to Facebook, and then you downloaded it, thanks to the compression, resizing,etc, that happens when you upload photos to social media (they heavily compress to save bandwidth and space), you most likely couldn’t tell I had altered anything.  

Or to put it another way, and I’m oversimplifying, if I gave you a direct copy of my work, and you enlarged it or looked through the layers, you would see fuzziness or jaggedness, or other indicators of where I altered something (like removing a crease) in those areas that had been altered.  If I uploaded it to Facebook and you downloaded it, or if I heavily compressed it when exporting so I could email you a smaller copy, the whole photo would have a fuzziness/jaggedness all throughout the photo when enlarged, or at least enough to hide it.  

Same problem with video - compression when uploading it to various online sites, etc. makes it harder to determine where alterations are.  

If you had a team of animators though, and the budget you could make convincing fakes - Forrest Gump is 25 years old.

What it sounds like is happening is that the software has advanced enough to simplify and substantially speed things up for altering videos, to the point where the proverbial 300 pounder in his mom’s basement can crank these out on his own, on at least a small scale.  An actual organization devoted to this *cough Russians cough* could wreak havoc in a large primary. Unless you get the original, it will be very hard to determine fakes.  

And that’s assuming you could get copies of the original media.  Look at the altered images of Trump with longer fingers and slimmer body the WH has been releasing.  If people didn’t track down the originals, you’d never know it. 

tl;dr: we are fucked

[Llano Estacado 1257]

words

[ndawg 1242]

On 1/22/2019 at 8:55 AM, atomheartbevo said:

I’ve cleaned up a few thousand photos over the past 15 years or so, from photos taken in the past 20 years, to photos going back to the 1860s.  Removed mold damage, tears, creases, even cleaned up/replaced small chunks of the photo being torn out (like a corner when it was torn from an album), pencil and pen marks/writing, contrast and color levels, etc.  The tools and hardware I have now can do in 30 seconds what used to take 4-5 minutes, and are much more automated.

10 or 15 years ago, if I cleaned up a photo and gave a copy to you, you could easily tell what I had altered if you looked at the layers or blew up the image, or at the very least, you could tell I had altered some things  

Within the last 5 years, it gets a lot tougher, as the software has improved substantially.  

But if I took an image from15, 10, or even 5 years ago, and uploaded it to Facebook, and then you downloaded it, thanks to the compression, resizing,etc, that happens when you upload photos to social media (they heavily compress to save bandwidth and space), you most likely couldn’t tell I had altered anything.  

Or to put it another way, and I’m oversimplifying, if I gave you a direct copy of my work, and you enlarged it or looked through the layers, you would see fuzziness or jaggedness, or other indicators of where I altered something (like removing a crease) in those areas that had been altered.  If I uploaded it to Facebook and you downloaded it, or if I heavily compressed it when exporting so I could email you a smaller copy, the whole photo would have a fuzziness/jaggedness all throughout the photo when enlarged, or at least enough to hide it.  

Same problem with video - compression when uploading it to various online sites, etc. makes it harder to determine where alterations are.  

If you had a team of animators though, and the budget you could make convincing fakes - Forrest Gump is 25 years old.

What it sounds like is happening is that the software has advanced enough to simplify and substantially speed things up for altering videos, to the point where the proverbial 300 pounder in his mom’s basement can crank these out on his own, on at least a small scale.  An actual organization devoted to this *cough Russians cough* could wreak havoc in a large primary. Unless you get the original, it will be very hard to determine fakes.  

And that’s assuming you could get copies of the original media.  Look at the altered images of Trump with longer fingers and slimmer body the WH has been releasing.  If people didn’t track down the originals, you’d never know it. 

Thanks for this reply.

I wonder what extent journalists require originals when they source stories with photographs? It's a scary thought that entire swaths of people can believe in images and videos that have been entirely falsified. I remember that Ahnuld movie The Running Man bringing this up back in the 80s... creepy shit. But there are all sorts of other artifacts beyond images that have been easy to fake for a long time, so I bet we've solved this kind of problem before.

For instance, I believe it's easier than ever, for instance, to forge legitimate looking checks, but I also believe it's harder than ever to get away with check fraud. I suppose there's merit to a glimmer of optimism that countermeasures may emerge out of necessity.