They warned you: Someone allegedly used a politician’s cloned voice to interfere with an election | It will most assuredly not be the last time this happens::undefined
The surprising part is that someone believed a politician’s voice.
Welcome to the age of AAA. Authorization, authentication and auditing. Where every action, whether over the phone, internet, or video chat needs to be verified externally with some kind of AAA system before that action can be verified and performed.
In this case, calling them back on a known phone number to verify their intent, or pushing a code to them over text or a third party authorization system (like duo or something) is required before action is taken.
IT and security folks have been preparing for this shit since before AI deepfakes were a thing. The general public, thus far, has not appreciated the extra security we have been requiring and at many levels, they’ve actively and even publically spoken out against it, or outright refused to participate.
You are vulnerable.
I keep saying: none of this will end until we get a clean, cryptographically secure, government-backed way to ID who is sending us something, and it becomes an expectation to use it all the time for anything important. Which is why I have conspiracy theories about the conspiracy theories about government ID.
a clean, cryptographically secure, government=backed way to ID who is sending us something, and it becomes an expectation to use it all the time
sounds dystopian.
sounds dystopian.
So does the total death of objective fact.
An end to internet anonymity isn’t great, but given the alternative I’ll take it.
Truth was always subjective. Technology is just forcing us to face that reality.
Truth is never subjective. Truth is Truth. People have different opinions on where the truth lies but there’s is an objective reality to anything.
I see you have never taken a Philosophy 101 course. “Truth” is a lot more complicated than you think.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
And I see you didn’t understand your philosophy 101 course.
All the ideas we have about this stuff comes from a pre-science era and nothing we discovered backs up what they argued.
That is why Plato can make up another dimension and a psychic connection, that is why Hume could pretend to not know what cause and effect was, that is why Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true…
Something to consider for a moment. If you are really determined to maintain the stance that truth is subject that would mean this stance is subjective. Hence there must be exceptions, but your stance allows none. Any statement of the effect that statements are never fully true is going to produce contradictions.
Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true
That’s not what Descartes said, by the way.
“I think therefore I am” was all about “I know I must exist, because I’m here to think about it”. It wasn’t about “if I think something it must be true”.
In Discourse he sets about trying to establish what things you can know for sure, vs which things are subjective (and could just be a trick of the mind or an illusion). He establishes the first principle that the one thing he knows is definitely true is that he is an entity that is capable of thought (because otherwise, who else is doing all this thinking?) and therefore at the very least he must exist, even if nothing else does.
If you’re of the position that truth isn’t subjective, “Cartesian doubt” should be right up your alley. Trust nothing until you can prove it! Not a bad position for a philosopher to take.
The “government backed” part is ostensibly about a government setting up the framework and like, requiring it be used for official documents.
It wouldn’t be too hard to stick a private signing key on say, your driver’s license / ID / passport, for instance.
It’s a complex issue, though, that sits on how much you trust whoever runs the system at some point.
Sure, that works… If you either change the entire american telecommunication system, and cut it off from the rest of the world… or change the entire worlds telecommunication system.
But you’re not going to get any of those, Which means your cryptographic phone system will have to be backwards compatible, which means skeevy fucks can continue to do this shit.
Well then you will have conspiracy theorists to tell you that government backed IDs are fake cause reptilians are controlling them…
Newspapers l, specially tabloids feeds on sensational crap like this
You don’t even need to ID who is sending it, just that the content itself can provide some grounding in an authentic source.
Like if a picture can say that it derives from an original photo captured by a camera signed with Canon’s credentials, and was changed in Photoshop in these specific ways and signed by Adobe…
There is a group working on exactly this. It’s called C2PA.
Anything on who did this?
If people are using these types of tactics to try and make people in one political party not vote, I’d say it’s more than fair for the same tactics to be used on the other party.
Is it ethical? Absolutely not.
Do I care? No because if I were to ever get messages/calls telling me not to vote, I’d laugh and vote anyways since I live in an area with mail in ballots.
Be careful, cycle of abuse is a thing. If we normalize this then it wont be long till it gets worse.
A better first step would be to educate people with skepticism so they understand that the president calling personally to ask people not to vote cant be right.
Another idea that could help is incorporating nft blockchain in official verifiable footage,quotes,stances, linked whenever referenced so the unaltered context can easily be sourced and non verifiable footage treated with skepticism.
People are still trying to pitch nfts to do basic database functions in 2024? I thought we’d moved on from this.
All an NFT can do is trade a url between people, all it does is say “yup this is the url alright, and this person owns this ticket pointing at this url” it adds nothing to authenticating footage.
I can track a cryptocurrency moving from one wallet to the next on the blockchain. I can see exactly what wallets interacted with that wallet.
Why can i not do this with digital media. Why do i have to rely on faith towards a publisher to be certain footage is unaltered and legal.
If the original publisher, a war journalist for Example. (And mind i agree they can still frame and be incorrect but they are closest to a real source) uploads their footage to a blockchain network and states that any valid unaltered use must happen trough this network then differentiating between good and bad faith posts becomes much easier.
I don’t care what system we end up using or how we Call it. I feel like nfts wherd abused to death leaving a bad taste but there was something there we just didn’t try. Currently we seem to do fuck all finding a solution for misinformation, Ai images are already getting mixed up with reality.
Proper tracking of footage used in the “global information network” should have been standard ages ago. It is necessary for a healthier internet. If you just read nft blabla then you miss my point.
jpgs are too large to include on the blockchain so instead links to hosting urls are used, how well do you think uploading video is going to go?
All an NFT does is prove this wallet created this token pointing to this URL and then it was exchanged with these other wallets at given times, none of that helps with truth verification. Unless you trust the veracity of whoever is doing the uploading of the footage, but if you trust them there is no need for a blockchain in the first place.
I agree that media files themselves are to large to be uploaded to a blockchain. A jpg will remain a jpg and people who want to make a copy can.
My idea centers around having a more official recognized record to find the most original forms of footage. The technology to use does not matter to me. I have no interest in using blockchain over other adequate technologies if you happen to be an expert in them.
I am simply observing that current we are allowing misinformation to spread and corrupt official information while it looks like there are tools that could help that we arent using.
I wouldnt blindly trust any human, including official news but i will put more trust in the footage from a veryfable career journalist reporting directly live from ukraine then the video clips we see shared on c/ukraine just like i will put more trust in the known social media profile of a politician rather then take my co workers word quoting their message.
With my idea the link to the record should be embedded in the footage itself. I originally pictures a smart camera with hard to fake metadata. But i repeat i am no expert and i litteraly dont care what technology we use to acomplish a similar improvement over status quo.
Its really annoying people Cant look past terms as nfts and blockchain. Yes i use them because thats where i did get the idea but i am no way saying this is the only or best solution.
Yeah…I mean, if you cloned Trump’s voice? And actually made it interact with the people? You could suppress the fascist vote by about 75%
I have to tell you that I’ve been compelled to listen to the Tiny Toon Adventures theme song on Spotify, because your username has been stuck in my head all evening.
The GOP can’t win without cheating.
Companies: Yeah, yeah, whatever… think how much we money can make using AI. Full steam ahead, consequences be damned.
tl;dr
Too Long; Didn’t Read: The battle cry of the uneducated voter everywhere.
It’s wild how desperately so-called Democratic voters want to show that they’re just as stupid and bull-headed as Trump supporters, and just like Trump supporters, they’ll just ignore anything that doesn’t fit their narrative.
Choosing to be ignorant isn’t the flex you think it is.
Tl;dr
Doubling down on being an idiot.
Tl;dr
Going for the triple! Yeah, go idiocy go!
Tl;dr
lmao, you’re funny, I’ll give you that.
“Interfere” with a primary election…
The DNC is very open about how primaries aren’t real elections and they don’t have to follow results.
And they already took all of NH delegates away because the Republicans who control the state house, Senate, and governorship wouldn’t change the state law that says NH is the first primary…
So yes, the deep fake is concerning for democracy.
But not as much as the DNC taking the delegates away from an entire state because Republicans wouldn’t listen to the DNC.
Especially since party favorite moderates have came in last in the last two NH primaries and the most progressive candidates came in first.
Imagine if Trump and the RNC did this in a state that routinely votes for a more progressive candidate in their primary…
We’d all (rightfully) be talking about the end of American democracy.
But when the DNC does it, it’s frightening how many moderates defend it because it’s good for moderates.
Not to minimize the 2016 or 2020 elections, which a lot of sources say there was not a level playing field in the DNC, but this year there is an incumbent president. This is how incumbent presidents are always treated. It’s normal and fair and strategically sound.
The same thing happened when Donald Trump was incumbent and nobody made a fuss.
Edit for clarity:
normal - The incumbent candidate has preferential treatment within the party in every election cycle. There are various ways that this manifests, and is usually different depending on the exact circumstances. If one chose, they could drill down into specific details to make it seem exceptional e.g. “It’s never been done in with this specific mechanism or in this particular state.”
fair - If you want access to preferential treatment, become President. The President is the figurehead not only of the country, but arguably even more so of their party. It would be unfair for the party leadership to undermine them while in office.
strategically sound - Incumbent candidates win elections. There is something like a 65% advantage to incumbency. Moreover, a party has limited political, social, and financial capital. If they spend that capital in the primary race, then they start the general election at a disadvantage. There is evidence (and common wisdom) that a primary race actually generates more capital, but I’ve never heard any credible suggestion that it could be a net gain in any area. Running a primary means a less unified party, less financial resources, less voter confidence in the victor.
This is how incumbent presidents are always treated. It’s normal and fair and strategically sound.
Really?
I never heard of any party stripping a state of their primary delegates because of something completely out of control of the state party… Especially when it’s a state that routinely votes against the party favorite.
Can you let me know some other times this happened?
In every election, the incumbent is given preferential treatment and generally treated as the de facto candidate. In which election are you thinking of that this was not the case?
Sure…
But when has the national party taken a state’s delegates away?
Ideally for something outside of the states party control, because that’s what just happened. And for a state that routinely votes against the national party’s chosen candidate.
But I’ll take any recent examples of a state losing their primary delegates because the national party yanked them away.
Welp, I guess I was right and this is totally unprecedented in modern American politics…
Still don’t understand why so many people are ok with this tho
Yeah dude, it’s not the actual fascists that are going to cause the end of our democracy. Let’s keep blaming Democrats for shit that the GOP is doing.
When your options are:
-
Full blown fascism
-
Occasionally fascism and not fighting the other sides fascism
A lot more than the 1/3 that don’t normally vote are likely going to not vote in the current election
That is a reality.
And the reality is if there’s depressed turnout, Republicans win.
Pointing it out that it’s likely to happen won’t make it happen.
Getting mad at someone for pointing it out is the same as burning a medicine woman as a witch because she said someone was going to die of their illness and then they died.
Or blaming a meteorologist for the snow storm they predicted.
It doesn’t make any rational sense. And you should be happy someone is trying to warn you, instead of getting mad and telling them if they don’t mention the issues, they’ll go away.
Get mad at the reason for it. In this case, Bidens actions.
If you have a better plan for getting Biden to stop doing all this stupid shit that hurts his chances and help trump besides complaining about it…
Well, I’m all ears.
Because as bad as Biden is, trump is far more dangerous
-
Removed by mod
