8 ms·
NSA, FBI, and CISA Release Cybersecurity Information Sheet on Deepfake Threats
- darkclouds 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cj 3y agoYou have one of the scariest HN bios I have ever read.
- Alifatisk 3y agoWow, didn't notice it.
- Horffupolde 3y agoI’d say it’s either a joke, real, or a canary.
- jstarfish 3y agoBetting on all possible outcomes doesn't really make a statement...
- Horffupolde 3y agoSometimes it’s good enough to understand what all possible outcomes are.
- darkclouds 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 1MachineElf 3y agoA recently announced breach at Retool[0] involved the use of a deepfake version of an IT employee's voice for social engineering. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37500895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37500895
- andrewinardeer 3y ago"My voice is my password"
- DharmaPolice 3y agoI must admit I found that element of the story...surprising. Has realtime faking gotten that good yet? Presumably there was back and forth in this call so this person was either disguising their voice or typing responses to be generated on the fly. I know all this can be done, I'm just surprised it's reached the maturity where an attacker would choose to impersonate someone the call recipient presumably knew vs just being a vague "Bob from IT". Although to be fair the article does say the employee was suspicious so maybe there was a delay which (if you were looking for it) you would spot.
- upofadown 3y agoEntities like CFOs and political leaders will have to start cryptographically signing their statements. There is no practical way to detect fakes after the fact.
- baq 3y agoA great not-quite-unexpected renaissance of PGP...?
- rightbyte 3y agoReally? How about not using unofficial channels for statements? I mean, what is new to this problem. Other than it is somewhat cheaper to pair the fake statement with the person responsible reading it out laud. Department press release -> Reuters -> News paper -> reader No signing required. The reader can verify the press release of he wants to.
- Voultapher 3y agoRelevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/2650/ https://xkcd.com/2650/
- thfuran 3y agoI think that's a really bad take. The difficulty of making many categories of lies is radically decreasing. That it has long been possible for a well-funded vfx team to do something doesn't mean nothing will change when it becomes possible for anyone with a cellphone and five minutes of free time to do the same thing.
- cj 3y ago> anyone with a cellphone and five minutes of free time One could argue that this will be a good thing because deep fakes will be so prevalent (e.g. kids making videos of their parents saying and doing funny things) that the default assumption is that everything is fake until proven not fake.
- KingLancelot 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shrubble 3y agoImages and video that goes against the approved government and/or media narratives == 'deepfake' .
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- matheusmoreira 3y agoNo idea why you're being downvoted. Governments the world over propagate disinformation every single day with absolute impunity. Yesterday I was reading this article about the day the USA almost accidentally nuked itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash > The Pentagon claimed at the time that there was no chance of an explosion and that two arming mechanisms had not activated. > A United States Department of Defense spokesperson stated that the bomb was unarmed and could not explode. > In 2013, information released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request confirmed that a single switch out of four (not six) prevented detonation. Nobody should ever trust a single thing these people say.
- artursapek 3y agoHacker News downvotes anything that makes them feel unsafe
- mu53 3y agoOr are there groups that upvote/downvote content to groom a certain narrative?
- 14 3y agoThere are not many sites around that don’t have this problem.
- KirillPanov 3y ago
- RecycledEle 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tomohawk 3y agoThese are some of the very same government entities that were caught working with their surrogates at social media companies to censor speech that they declared misinformation. In their vernacular, misinformation may be 100% true information that goes against the narrative that they want to promote.
- rtkwe 3y agoThis again? They pointed out posts they believed violated places like Twitter's TOS and in the case of Twitter most of the time Twitter left them up and took no action against the material. A pretty shoddy censorship campaign in my opinion, it was blown up by Elon and the partisan actors he released the data to to support a political point they've been griping about for ages.
- pessimizer 3y ago> This again? You're talking about something that has been ruled by two courts as a massive first amendment violation, and is heading to the Supreme Court (if they even want it), as if it were a conspiracy theory. And what political point are you even talking about, where do you learn to use this tone about serious issues, and why the fixation on celebrities like Musk?
- trust_bt_verify 3y ago“ A federal district court in California dismissed the claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. The court of appeals ruled that although “it is possible to draw a causal line from the OEC’s flagging of the November 12th post to O’Handley’s suspension,” there was no “state action” for O’Handley to challenge under the First Amendment. California certainly exercised governmental authority when it flagged O’Handley’s tweet, the 9th Circuit reasoned, but it took no explicit action restricting his speech. And although Twitter did limit O’Handley’s speech, the court explained, it was following its own rules, rather than acting on the state’s behalf.” https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/08/once-suspended-twitter-user-argues-california-violated-his-first-amendment-rights/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/08/once-suspended-twitter-us... This case? Where did _you_ learn this tone of victimization when discussion issues with no references? I assume Musk was brought up as he has framed this issue in the same way the GP commenter did and he is the current owner of the company in question. You can dismiss that as celebrity fixation but it only undermines your own comment.
- patwolf 3y agoI'm old enough to remember back in 2005 when terrorist in Iraq claimed to be holding a US soldier hostage, and it turned out the whole thing was staged using photos of a doll: Original story: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/world/africa/rebels-say-they-hold-us-soldier-hostage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/world/africa/rebels-say-t... Confirmation of hoax: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6894934 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6894934 It's pretty easy to see that the photo is a hoax, but many news outlets didn't notice and ran the story anyway. I have little faith in our ability to detect deepfakes using these recommendations. It seems we'll have to assume something is fake unless we have a way to cryptographically verify its provenience.
- dylan604 3y ago>I'm old enough to remember back in 2005 How to make someone feel old. All the way back to 2005, eh?
- I_am_uncreative 3y agoSomeone born in 2005 is a freshman in college now.
- ejb999 3y ago>>It's pretty easy to see that the photo is a hoax, but many news outlets didn't notice and ran the story anyway. More likely: many news outlets didn't CARE and ran the story anyway.
- superkuh 3y agoThere are no deepfake threats. Deepfakes is just the hype word for digitally altering photos/videos. In the past doing this well was restricted to governments, large corporations, large institutions. And they did it regularly. Now individual human people can do it themselves. That's good. That's not bad in any form or manner.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoThe difference is that rather than altered, they’re generated. It’s a new seeming-photograph that can’t be discovered as an alteration by checking against other photos to play “spot the difference”. Nobody really had this capability before.
- jdjdjdjdjduuuu 3y agoBefore what
- superkuh 3y ago>Nobody really had this capability before. I find your distinction between altering and creating to be ... a sidetrack. But okay, let's pretend I said "Deepfakes is just the hype word for digitally altering or creating photos/videos". Large institutions/etc have definitely been able to create novel "photos" from scratch for a long time now. It was just a lot of work, which is why it was restricted to large groups of people with lots of capital. Now even individuals can do it. And that's good. The idea that prior to deepfakes that photos could not be created is not supported by my lived experience since the 1980s. Just look at any hollywood movie.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoI see your point. I'm not sure I agree with all of the statements in your original comment but this one that caught my attention is a pretty minor distinction. CGI in movies is essentially this same thing but done manually by humans, sometimes even without input from the actor: see Carrie Fisher in whatever Star Wars movie I forgot. There's still something about the scale of effort that seems to change this, though. For example, even if a government could hire people to produce a fake photograph, and even do so in time to use the photograph for some political manipulation, I'm not so convinced they could do so with a video. Even considering that large organizations could already do this technically, the ease of function that this allows is pretty worrying, though I do otherwise think it is a good thing that this technology is "out of the bag", so to speak.
- pokstad 3y agoWe got lazy with the internet age. We’re going to have to go back to basic principles again. That means if you didn’t see it with your own eyes, it’s not real. If someone didn’t tell you in person, then they didn’t tell you. Maybe this won’t be a bad thing after all.
- MadSudaca 3y agoIt might bring down all the bridges the internet helped build. Also, it will make the world more centralized, having to trust more on big names and institutions. As a libertarian, this is the opposite direction I’d like the world to go in.
- pokstad 3y agoWe need to start trusting people we know again. Not institutions or celebrities on pedestals. We need to trust our family and friends and community again.
- MadSudaca 3y agoIt's interesting that you've gotten so many downvotes. The sad thing is that as things are progressing in the west, a large number of people won't have families or communities to lean on.
- Capricorn2481 3y agoHow so?
- MadSudaca 3y agoFertility rates going down, divorce rates going up, and young people finding it harder to navigate dating and relationships. To the latter point, soon most new relationships will start through dating apps, and these have their share of problems too. These are some of the things that I think make finding companionship and building families harder.
- _trampeltier 3y agoI couldn't find the comment again, but as somebody else said here on HN a while ago. The comment was like .. We live in special times. Until 100 years ago we had just news from other people, mouth to mouth. So we had to decide what is wright and what just BS. Last 100 years we had newspapers, radio and TV. News was mostly true, we could trust what we saw on pictures, on screen. But now again .. pictures can so easy be just fake. So we have to decide again, what is true and what BS:
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago> News was mostly true 100 years ago was the time of yellow journalism, where lies were commonplace. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
- mistrial9 3y agothis timeline is way off .. intellectuals of the mid-1600 in certain places got news from all over the world. There were contests between language groups in all the major sciences and engineering. The printing press was beginning mass produced content.. that was all a solid 500+ years ago
- efitz 3y agoCourts already have processes in place to challenge evidence; I’m not worried about them. The problem with deepfakes is the instant amplification they’ll get from media and well-intentioned responses from people of good faith. So there will be the deepfake of (insert your favorite politician) saying something unsavory and it’ll be taken at face value and a bunch of people will cancel their social media and bank accounts and protest in front of their houses etc etc. The solution is super simple but unpalatable in today’s culture - waiting periods. What if corporations were required by law to wait 30 days after a public spectacle before taking action? This would provide time for the victim to defend themselves and the truth to come out. Similarly I have always thought that passing laws in the heat of the moment results in people’s rights being tramples. What if legislators were required to wait one year before passing laws in response to a public event of some sort? This would give time for passions to cool and alternatives to be considered and impacts to be weighed. But this is all a pipe dream, let’s just cancel them immediately like we do now.
- cthalupa 3y ago> What if legislators were required to wait one year before passing laws in response to a public event of some sort? Someone discovers a way to bypass regulations and legislature and easily acquire the material needed to create a dirty bomb and sets one off. Now we wait 365 days to fix the loophole. Pretty obviously an absurd extremity for that example, but I sure as shit don't want there to be that level of lag time on important things like that, and I imagine most people would also want to be able to move faster in situations where it is dangerous not to. How do we determine where that line is, what the exceptions are, etc.? What happens when we need an exception and didn't realize it?
- efitz 3y agoThe situation you describe is really contrived. What happens in real life is that in emergencies, the legislature passes some “sentencing enhancement” that adds on a decade or three of prison time in the circumstance. Or they create a new bureaucracy that in the end just makes life worse for everyone, like the DHS and all the airport suckage that happened after 9/11 - if you’re too young to remember, flying on airplanes did not always suck.
- noonething 3y agoSomeones gonna use advanced airplane technology to take over the world and blame it on aliens.