Basically these things are going to make video evidence null and void. And make perverted hackers turn every celebrity into a porn star.
Not really. Investigators can review the code which will tell them if it’s been adulterated. Video evidence has always been under tremendous scrutiny and this won’t change much except to the casual viewer.
"Review the code"? I'm not sure you actually understand how computer forensics work. There's no source code to a video, and no special flag that makes it obvious that it's a fake. There are some pretty sophisticated fake detection algorithms out there now, but they still have a non-zero failure rate, and the fakes keep getting better. Also, the "casual viewer" is huge in terms of fakes. Think about the lunacy on the far extremes of the political spectrum, or fringy anti-science views like antivax, where facts aren't actually checked and only have a vague correlation to reality. Hell, just a convincing public figure sex video released at the right time before it can be properly checked and dismissed. This isn't just a legal problem - this has huge ramifications for society at large.
I assume you mean one that is just uploaded, but isn't there if you edit it though? Not a source code maybe, but it leaves some kind of data print. I have no idea how feasible tracing that would be. Once it's out there I would imagine it would be pretty difficult to track it back to the original source/editor. You say this like it's an entirely bad thing. We already have nut jobs breaking down youtube videos of ghosts, bigfoot, and ancient aliens. The history channel must be so pissed to find out about all the new competition.
And what kind of data print would it leave? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm with Binary on this one... I think people have been watching too much CSI and other bullshit TV and have a huge misunderstanding how "cyber" stuff works, never mind binary assets like movies, pictures, etc.
Maybe for legal procedures you could have algorithms that give a good probability the video has been tampered with, but for the general public you could have the guy who made the deep fake appear on TV and say "yeah, I faked that shit" and it wouldn't put a dent in the number of people who believe it's true. We're far too dumb for that.
I'm not talking about the uploaded source code, I'm talking about the original editor and the software they used. In theory I guess they could just wipe that too once the video is passed around, but I thought that was much more difficult to do as opposed to using something like the dark web to hide your trail. Maybe it's way easier than I thought. I'm just thinking back to some real life criminals that got caught because they thought all they had to do was delete something off their computer.
Shit bruh to get around the source code you can just record a video of the deep fake video with your phone. That’ll give it an aura of secrecy that it had to be surreptitiously taped off a NSA computer monitor. I think he means the raw data of the video would have some trace it’s been fucked with right?
That probably had to do with doing a "simple" delete that only removed the drive access pointer rather than the data actually on the drive. Since then there are things like encrypted drives and secure wipes that do all sorts of shit to the drive to ensure that the file is gone. And there's also a bunch of cache files, etc, that could be left behind. But to look at a video file, you usually have zero clue where it came from or how it was made/etc. There are a ton of very sophisticated analysis processes that can be performed to try and detect when something is fucked with, but even then it's not a for sure thing. The short version as to whether a fake is detectable comes down to who made it, and who's testing it. A bad job is easy to spot. A good job, not so much. A job done by a nation state or a group with more money than God, probably impossible to detect, unless you're a competing nation state also with more money than God. Some of it is a technical analysis of the "source file", potentially, others are the results of various compression routines (think of back in the day when you made a mix tape and then made a copy of a copy... something similar but due to digital compression, uncompression, recompression). Some of it is an optical analysis of the video itself (light reflection off of objects; same angle, intensity, white point, on all objects, fucked up shadows, etc). So yeah, go figure... it's complicated and nuanced and way more complex than TV or stupid journalists will have you believe. So when you make a simple, uneducated, generalization of a statement, odds are it's wrong.
I never followed up on my, Jungle Julia's, and Li'l Bandit's trip to San Antonio for some wicker chairs. The day started off well, but once we got within about 50 miles of San Antonio, traffic on interstate 37 slowed to about 45 miles per hour until we actually reached the city, then it sped up considerably. Jungle Julia made this whole deal, and she thought that we'd be meeting in a public parking lot (she kept mentioning a Walgreens), but it turns out that the guy selling the chairs didn't have a truck to move them. That meant we had to go to his apartment. I didn't think it was a big deal, but Jungle Julia started talking about "Craigslist killers," and got really paranoid. In the end, it was some short, hipster-looking guy selling the chairs, and he even helped carry them to the truck. After we got that transaction finished, we stopped to eat, and Li'l Bandit posted a picture of us on his Instagram page: Spoiler Shortly after, I shit you not, some girl in his followers list posted: "Why is your dad so sexy?" Jungle Julia went on a rampage, berating the girl on Li'l Bandit's Instagram account (she was just some girl from his high school that he didn't care about. ). Funny stuff.
If someone found the various input files (which, in the case of deepfakes, involves having the footage that you're splicing the person into, and then as much video footage from the person themselves as you can gather), it'd be pretty easy to deduce that a fake was made. But deleting that stuff is trivial, and not even necessary if the drives are encrypted (which so many computers are by default these days). Removing the source evidence is the easiest part. In any event, why is there any reason to believe that somehow we're going to know what particular computer these fakes came from? Let alone knowing it before the social damage is done: it's not like someone has to hide their tracks very long if they want to destroy the draft status of a football player, or torpedo an election the night before. At the end of the day, the only thing you can count on being able to see is the end product. I'd love to believe that the detection algorithms are going to keep up with with faking algorithms, but I don't think that's going to be the case, at least not for a while. IT won't save you. We're all going to have to use the same level of distrust for video that we use for photos.
I would imagine that you would be able to do some analysis of the compression artifacts, since nearly all video will be using lossy compression, and the different source files would have noticeably different noise depending on lighting and color balance. A sophisticated operation like the CIA could probably do a better job, but I imagine the go to way to cover that up would be to compress it further, leaving a much lower quality video.
Yeah, I don't pretend to understand the low-level bits and pieces of various codecs and their compression algorithms, which is why I was saying that there are more than likely experts in exactly that who know what to look for, and therefore know what to try and hide or cover up. Hell, just straight up CGI in movies is getting to the point where it can be hard to see... it used to be that you could immediately tell what was CGI. Those days are gone, depending on the budget and subject matter.
Because that's how my mama made me. In other news, my shitheel neighbors backed into my car and smashed in the wheel arch on the quarter panel. I didn't notice until I got to work. I know it was them because they have a Chevy Avalanche, and there's black plastic residue on my car. I know that those fucks will never admit it, though. Now I have to talk to the cops. Have I ever told y'all that I hate talking to cops? Because I do.