The White House wants to ‘cryptographically verify’ videos of Joe Biden so viewers don’t mistake them for AI deepfakes::Biden’s AI advisor Ben Buchanan said a method of clearly verifying White House releases is “in the works.”

  • General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    For the average end-user, it would look like “https”. You would not have to know anything about the technical background. Your browser or other media player would display a little icon showing that the media is verified by some trusted institution and you could learn more with a click.

    In practice, I see some challenges. You could already go to the source via https, EG whitehouse.gov, and verify it that way. An additional benefit exists only if you can verify media that have been re-uploaded elsewhere. Now the user needs to check that the media was not just signed by someone (EG whitehouse.gov. ru), but if it was really signed by the right institution.

    • TheKingBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      As someone points out above, this just gives them the power to not authenticate real videos that make them look bad…

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Videos by third parties, like Trump’s pussy grabber clip, would obviously have to be signed by them. After having thought about it, I believe this is a non-starter.

        It just won’t be as good as https. Such a signing scheme only makes sense if the media is shared away from the original website. That means you can’t just take a quick look at the address bar to make sure you are not getting phished. That doesn’t work if it could be any news agency. You have to make sure that the signer is really a trusted agency and not some scammy lookalike. That takes too much care for casual use, which defeats the purpose.

        Also, news agencies don’t have much of an incentive to allow sharing their media. Any cryptographic signature would only make sense for them if directs users to their site, where they can make money. Maybe the potential for more clicks - basically a kind of clickable watermark on media - could make this take off.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I honestly feel strategies like this should be mitigated by technically savvy journalism, or even citizen journalism. 3rd parties can sign and redistribute media in the public domain, vouching for their origin. While that doesn’t cover all the unsigned copies in existence, it provides a foothold for more sophisticated verification mechanisms like a “tineye” style search for media origin.