Technology

59427 readers

2915 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

302

A fake recording of a candidate saying he’d rigged the election went viral. Experts say it’s only the beginning (edition.cnn.com)

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A fake recording of a candidate saying he’d rigged the election went viral. Experts say it’s only the beginning::Days before a pivotal election in Slovakia to determine who would lead the country, a damning audio recording spread online in which one of the top candidates seemingly boasted about how he’d rigged the election.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Fundamentally we as a species have lost the use of face and voice in a video to establish authenticity.

A person can spoof an email, and we have cryptographic signatures as a means of authentication.

So if I record myself saying something I could sign the video I guess (implementation TBD lol).

But what if someone else (news agency say) takes a video of someone else, how do we authenticate that?

If it's a news agency they could sign it. Great.

But then we have the problem of incentives, too. Does the benefit of a fake outweigh the detrimental effects for said news agency?

The most damage would be to the person being videoed (reputation, loss of election, whatever). There would be less damage to the media company ("oops so sorry please stay subscribed"). You could add fines but corporate oversight is weak. And the benefit of releasing a fake would be clicks and money so a news company would be a lot more likely to pass along a fake as real.

So I guess I have no idea what we do. At the moment we are fucked. Yay.

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If it's a news agency they could sign it. Great.

But then it hinders the denouncing of police violence, whistleblowing, and allows corporations to sign their claims while what regular people record will be assumed to be false

Edit: reporting can also be done as a second hand account, reposting videos/photos already in circulation, meaning that either a news company will sign those second hand recordings at the risk of validating AI content, or only their own corporate recordings will be used.

No one wins in any case

load more comments (1 replies)