Nah once deepfakes become simple enough for the majority to make, citizen-created video evidence will be worthless.
Only 'tamper-proof' sources will be trusted even when they will be tampered with.
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
61 points (96.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43786 readers
1195 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't remember if this came from cybersecurity logging practices or from anti-deepfake advice I saw online, but maybe physical cameras can constantly upload video evidence to a reliable third-party server which will save the checksums of, suppose, every minute's worth of data. Then there would be no way for the source of the video to retroactively replace the content on that server with deepfake videography without this leaving evidence in the checksums.
I'm not sure if/how the third-party server would be able to tell that it's listening to a real bodycam/dashcam rather than simply receiving data from a deepfake-generating AI model. I guess to use a video for evidence, you'd have to have corroborating evidence from nearby people who recorded the same event from a different angle (AI-generated videos would have trouble with creating different angles of the same event, right?).
And even if you can't use a video as evidence, witness testimony has always been used in court. Someone else on Lemmy wrote that people have been making arguments in court since before there was photo/video evidence; our justice system (whoever "our" refers to) will simply revert to pre-camera ways when a photo/video cannot be trusted.
Another option related to the checksum solution is that camera manufactorers could implement a system on the physical camera where the raw file is tagged with some checksum/stamp and the same is stored on the device. In a situation where the validity of the photo/video in question, you could use the raw files and the physical device that captured it as the proof.
I'm sure we will see multiple attempts to solve this, whether it be adverserial "de-fake" AIs, some physical verification or something completely different. It will be interesting to see what work and not, and what may turn out to become the standard way of verification
Then some company will put out a camera that uploads all the video to the cloud with verification and makes it read only.
A hackspace I am in contact with had an... interesting debate on this topic.
Member A used a wearable video recording system. His view was that it was fixing a disability (his poor memory) in the same manner as someone wearing glasses, or a hearing aid.
Member B was a privacy advocate. He had STRONG views on his right to not be photographed or recorded, without his permission.
These 2 members did not see eye to eye. Both had a valid view , but diametrically opposed. Normally, it wouldn't be too bad. Unfortunately, both were on the governing committee! Apparently even trying to arrange how to run the meetings to discuss it was getting problematic!
In the USA, in a public space, Member B doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. You have no right to privacy in a public space.
This wasn't in America, it was a private group. Also both peoples had had their views respected, at different times. It was the collision of rights that caused fun.
Privacy advocates are quite common in hackspaces. They generally have their requests respected. The rule of thumb is to check before taking pictures of someone else, or their projects. Most don't have an issue, but a few might want to limit some things.
I feel the more likely scenario is for public surveillance to reach a point where everyone outside their home (or near a window) is being recorded from multiple sources.
It's already the case in neighborhoods and apartment/townhome complexes, Amazon's Ring. Can't walk down the street without being recorded on both sides by at least 50% of front doors / driveways. Amazon who was recently caught allowing employees to view hundreds of women's home camera feeds (even indoor cameras, since the average person doesn't fully consider how much a single company can spy on you when there's a camera/microphone reporting directly to their servers).
Very true, I forgot about the doorbell cameras! Neighbors on FB will often post their camera footage when a "suspicious" (read: black or young) person drives by
Sooner or later, it'll be borderline impossible to talk a stroll without being captured on a video somewhere. I wonder how disguises/masks might evolve to counteract. And if any scene occurs, you'd better bet there'll be at least one phone camera pointed at it.
Look up "Justice Caps" and "Hacker Hoodie". Infrared anti-camera apparel
I await the day whenever secure, self-hosted services are the norm instead of centralized, proprietary services.
Humans are lazy. Having someone else set up all the details is a lot easier than doing it yourself. Until we fundamentally change the human condition, it will be a losing battle. The best we can likely do is limit the damage and reduce the difficulty of taking the better road.
What if there happened to be an extremely determined individual who's dream is to change "the human condition?" Sure it will be a losing battle in the beginning, but a battle fought doesn't determine a war. Especially if it's a war that's been waged over our entire history. The market would also have to shift towards simple to deploy, self-hosted, free (as in freedom) open-source devices. Once everyone understands why a little effort can go a very long way, then I'm sure we can all actually change for better; for our future.
For seasoned self hosters, it's a little effort. For novices it's more work. For the initiated, it's a huge effort, for no apparent gain.
We are fighting the Nash equilibrium, and I can't see how we can adjust it in favour of self host etc. It's better to fight the battles we can win, than pour effort after the impossible. In this case, it's to provide an independent option that is as low effort as possible. This can become a reference to keep the excesses of the big companies limited, to some degree.
Today it might be as much a hassle as to assemble a micro computer in the eighties, but I bet it will be one as easy as filming with your mobile phone in the future.
Question for you, what percentage of people now build their own computers? It's far less than it used to be.
The point was that in the future it will be easy to set up surveillance cameras
It already is extremely easy. It's easy due to companies hiding the complexity. Unfortunately, those companies operate in a capitalist system. Until either the whole system changes (unlikely) or human nature changes (very unlikely) they will always drift towards data mining.
Secure, self-hosted services take knowledge to set up. Everyone wants a plug-and-play solution.
What if, over time, we focused on plug-and-play, free (freedom), open-source solutions? Take framework laptops as an example. There was a problem with laptops being difficult to self-service, so they developed a solution. Sure, not THE solution, but progress in the right direction means a lot. As long as we can recognize the faults in centralized services. (Spread relatable awareness), and care enough to support action which further develops decentralization.
I sure hope so. I just want to be able to prove to my wife she said that hamburgers were fine for dinner when she argues she never said that.
Nothing would really surprise me. I am fascinated by that Black Mirror episode where they have cameras in their eyes and can play back anything they've ever seen, or download/stream for others to see. Even this seems totally plausible eventually.
You should check out Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. It takes it a bit further ...
Will do, thanks!
After the backlash that was created by Google Glass and the clusterfucks that other hip consumer-oriented wearable cameras (like Snap's Spectacles, Ray Ban's and Bose's glasses) have been, I don't expect this to happen.
It's much more likely that CCTV will be so pervavise that we're unlikely to have any expectation of privacy whatsoever, once in public and that governments and the private sector will have access to most of it.
If they don't already. Probably more of to what degree at this point.
problem is trusting those sources.
Nah. When you look at the groups that employ body/dash cams (Police, Russian drivers, ...) what they have in common is that they are involved in activities that have a high likelyhood to get you involved in altercations and it can be really important to have the incident on camera from the first second on. This simply doesn't hold true for most people - not to a degree that warrants attaching a permanent surveillance device to your body when you already have an easily accessible on demand camera with you.
I think so, but for different reasons. Dash and became popular specifically for protection. I think that AR will become so ubiquitous that we will, by default, all be wearing body cams. Once AR becomes popular enough, someone will offer an โappโ that will automatically record and save the last 10 minutes or something along those lines.
Yes, because AI assistants are going to get too good to not use. And they are going to be made infinitely more powerful by being able to see and hear everything around you.
I think it's possible for a self-hosted/maintained 360 degree camera to become frequently used. People in busy cities could definitely benefit from having the ability to record whoever walks up to possibly bother them. As long as this made-up product doesn't connect to the internet, I imagine it would be practical and safe.
Hmmm, "as common" is subjective. Where I was from, dashcams weren't allowed.
What country doesn't allow dash-cams? How do you even deal with a he-said she-said situation in a car crash?
Germany for one doesn't allow them. Privacy rights of the filmed supersed rights of the filmer.
The exception are action cams that perpetually overwrite content and only store it when an impact is detected.
Western Europe has a couple. Either way, I wanted one but got a lawyer telling me I'm better off not getting it, because I'd only ever be able to hand footage off for insurance and I'd better hope the incident was in private property.