Cryptographic signatures are something we should have been normalizing for awhile now.
I remember during the LTT Linux challenge, at one point they were assigned the task “sign a PDF.” Linus interpreted this as PGP sign the document, which apparently Okular can do but he didn’t have any credentials set up. Luke used some online tool to photoshop an image of his handwriting into the document.
The NFTs tried to solve this problem already and it didn’t work. You can change the hash/sig of a video file by just changing one pixel on one frame, meaning you just tricked the computer, not the people who use it.
so try again?
also: if a pixel changes then it isn’t the original source video, by definition. being able to determine that it has been altered is entirely the point.
The point was to sign AI footage so you know what’s fake. NFTs can be used as a decentralized repository of signatures. You could realistically require the companies to participate, but the idea doesn’t work because you can edit footage so it doesn’t match the signature. More robust signatures exist, but none is good enough, especially since the repo would have to be public.
Signing real footage makes even less sense. You’d have to trust everybody and their uncle’s signature.
i think the point is to be able to say “this video was released by X, and X signed it so they must have released it, and you can validate that yourself”.
it means if you see a logo that shows CNN, and its signed by CNN, then you know for sure that CNN released it. As a news organisation they should have their own due diligence about sources etc, but they can at least be held to account at that point.
versus random ai generated video with a fake logo and fake attribution that is going viral and not being able to be discredited in time before it becomes truth.
Why not link to the original CNN source then, if you want to be trusted? You’d have to do that anyways if you want to use the CNN footage in your own video.
I don’t think people who care about the validity of a news video will be helped much with this, and people who don’t care about the truth can easily ignore it too.
As a news organisation they should have their own due diligence about sources etc
But what if they can’t anymore? News orgs don’t only show video that they recorded. They have videos from freelance reporters, people who were at an event, government orgs, other news orgs in other countries…
sure, totally ok to incorporate those video items & publish your (signed) story. i think we’ve seen pretty clesrly that people want to publish and be recognised for their publications.
building a web of trust has to start somewhere.
currently we’re in the “its all very difficult, we cant solve all the tricky things, so we’re not even trying” stage.
hopefully we find a way to move forward, even if its not perfect.
videos need to be cryptographically signed and able to be verified. all news outlets should do this.
Cryptographic signatures are something we should have been normalizing for awhile now.
I remember during the LTT Linux challenge, at one point they were assigned the task “sign a PDF.” Linus interpreted this as PGP sign the document, which apparently Okular can do but he didn’t have any credentials set up. Luke used some online tool to photoshop an image of his handwriting into the document.
agreed. having a cryptography mark on the file and relying on chain of trust is the way.
The NFTs tried to solve this problem already and it didn’t work. You can change the hash/sig of a video file by just changing one pixel on one frame, meaning you just tricked the computer, not the people who use it.
so try again? also: if a pixel changes then it isn’t the original source video, by definition. being able to determine that it has been altered is entirely the point.
The point was to sign AI footage so you know what’s fake. NFTs can be used as a decentralized repository of signatures. You could realistically require the companies to participate, but the idea doesn’t work because you can edit footage so it doesn’t match the signature. More robust signatures exist, but none is good enough, especially since the repo would have to be public.
Signing real footage makes even less sense. You’d have to trust everybody and their uncle’s signature.
The signing keys could be published to DNS, for better or worse.
That’s not really feasible without phones doing this automatically.
Even then didn’t the first Trump admin already argue iPhone video can’t be trusted because it’s modified with AI filters?
… so make the phones do it?
i mean, its not rocket surgery.
Sign every video automatically? Sounds like chatcontrol all over.
Also, I could just generate a video on my computer and film it with my phone. Now it’s signed, even has phone artifacts for added realism.
i think the point is to be able to say “this video was released by X, and X signed it so they must have released it, and you can validate that yourself”. it means if you see a logo that shows CNN, and its signed by CNN, then you know for sure that CNN released it. As a news organisation they should have their own due diligence about sources etc, but they can at least be held to account at that point. versus random ai generated video with a fake logo and fake attribution that is going viral and not being able to be discredited in time before it becomes truth.
Why not link to the original CNN source then, if you want to be trusted? You’d have to do that anyways if you want to use the CNN footage in your own video.
I don’t think people who care about the validity of a news video will be helped much with this, and people who don’t care about the truth can easily ignore it too.
But what if they can’t anymore? News orgs don’t only show video that they recorded. They have videos from freelance reporters, people who were at an event, government orgs, other news orgs in other countries…
sure, totally ok to incorporate those video items & publish your (signed) story. i think we’ve seen pretty clesrly that people want to publish and be recognised for their publications. building a web of trust has to start somewhere. currently we’re in the “its all very difficult, we cant solve all the tricky things, so we’re not even trying” stage. hopefully we find a way to move forward, even if its not perfect.
How would that work? Why would you have any reason to trust me in this chain?