1. You code stuff? Nice! I spent several years in IT, but it was mostly repair work. I looked into basic programming & quickly realized I was in over
2. As dangerous as this technology can be (in regards to public manipulation), I think the real damage was done long ago. Look at the 2004 "Bin Laden
Confession" tape and the Bin Laden tapes released after he was supposedly killed. At the time, they looked real enough to convince most people even
though some were skeptical. But now that we've become more accustomed to HD video and photo/video manipulation, it should be obvious to anyone that
they're not authentic.
Exhibit C (the video where they claimed he dyed his hair first):
It's bad enough that most people rely on international media companies to properly translate the words of many foreign leaders & controversial
figures. But now, any intelligence agency or defense contractor can simply use publicly available software to recreate landscapes and people. And
audio software is just as advanced, with software and programs that can mimic the voices of individuals, mimic the sounds of specific mics and mic
preamps, and even mimic the acoustics of specific buildings. And if the job isn't convincing enough, they can just run it through some filters to dull
the colors, definition, etc.
When the guy from Adobe mentioned how they were working on audio watermarks I immediately thought to myself "that will be quickly circumvented by
using custom or hacked software". They need to focus on finding the difference between real and fake audio, there should be many clear indicators,
like there are in a fake picture. However I predict eventually our software will be so good at creating fake voices that it will become impossible to
use voice recordings and even video as evidence in court.
edit on 15/11/2016 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
On the other hand, it's not like there is a publicly trusted lab that would be determining the authenticity of those recordings. We'd still be relying
on contractors, govt sources, and media-trusted labs to vouch for the credibility of them. So even if some lone individuals discovered discrepancies
or watermarks, it would be seen no differently than the conspiracy theorists who point out the flaws in an official story.
I wonder how long it will take the courts to adapt to these impersonating technologies? Seems like we will soon reach the cusp of inadmissible
security footage. Possibly I weak link in the surveillance state utopia some dream of.
I think it will take an entire generation for that change to happen. Countless State and local judicial systems will need new prosecutors, defense
lawyers, and judges who have been trained in video manipulation enough to know when to look for it.
Put it like this, this article
ERE) says that it was in 1988 when DNA evidence was first used to help convict a killer. But to this day, DNA evidence still isn't universally
used in cases. There are still people on Death Row who never had DNA testing done during their cases, which sometimes exonerates them during their
appeals (the same goes for rape cases and others).
Another example is when I was on a jury, the police footage of the event had several minutes with the audio intentionally turned off. And their
footage in some parts was sped up when shown to us on the jury. But the judge had no problem allowing that evidence to be used. So what's stopping
police departments from editing the footage before releasing it to the public or to prosecutors right now? To me, it's no different that govt
officials using redacted/edited files to convince the public that their position is correct.
Very good points made. I am aware of the second part of your post. Which has made me question the whole body cam system. When it comes to law and the
"red tape" and such surrounding it the possibility of it all getting sorted out and judgements made in pure blind justice seems impossible yet not for
a lack of certain people trying.
a reply to: enlightenedservant
Just like "computer forensics" these days. It shouldn't be admissible in court really, but experts in court will swear up and down timestamps and such
mean a thing, when they are editable by anyone.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.