Was geschieht mit unserem Konzept der Wahrheit, wenn Deepfakes und digitale Informations-Manipulation alle Informationen unter Generalverdacht stellen?
Perhaps something like digital signatures will rise as an important factor of at least being able to verify if a piece of digital information is unaltered and from a specific source and thus estimate its trustworthiness?
Not sure if that helps. How do you as an individual build a list of trustable sources? And how do you prevent a trusted source from being fooled into publishing a fake?
When it comes to images and video pretty much anyone can be fooled into publishing a fake. That's why I don't trust sources per se, but I do trust in the, lets say, good will of the institutions. You can't be sure if a video published by the New York Times is actually real, but you can trust the NYT, that they are professionals and that they don't malevolently conspire to publish fake vids to mislead the public and so forth. So I personally trust in something like "media authority": Experts are more trustworthy than non-experts (including journalists), and Journalists are more trustworthy than amateurs, and amateurs are more trustworthy than lunatics. I trust pretty much no-one with an agenda, that includes activists, politicians, activistic journalists and scientists and, ofcourse, companies and PR-agencies. You can trust these to a certain level, but they always have to be read in the context of their agenda.
Plus, for me personally, when it comes to deepfakes, I work in media production since 1996 and I know my compression artefacts when I see them, so it's also a lot of professional experience.
Basically, you have to read a lot, make your own mistakes and learn who can be trusted, which takes a while. There's no way around basic work, I guess.
I was aiming at the point that technical solutions (like digital signatures) do not gasp the problem. Because they still need a trust anchor, and as you nicely described above: The anchor can be existing institutions. Technology alone can't possibly solve this issue.
Perhaps something like digital signatures will rise as an important factor of at least being able to verify if a piece of digital information is unaltered and from a specific source and thus estimate its trustworthiness?
NFTs to be used for that?
"Unaltered" meaning that it was not altered on top of what the source might have altered already on e.g. a picture.
Yeah, "trustless" Blockchain-Solutions maybe be one way around that...
And that's a nice username right there, I used that phrase a lot in another life. ;)
Not sure if that helps. How do you as an individual build a list of trustable sources? And how do you prevent a trusted source from being fooled into publishing a fake?
When it comes to images and video pretty much anyone can be fooled into publishing a fake. That's why I don't trust sources per se, but I do trust in the, lets say, good will of the institutions. You can't be sure if a video published by the New York Times is actually real, but you can trust the NYT, that they are professionals and that they don't malevolently conspire to publish fake vids to mislead the public and so forth. So I personally trust in something like "media authority": Experts are more trustworthy than non-experts (including journalists), and Journalists are more trustworthy than amateurs, and amateurs are more trustworthy than lunatics. I trust pretty much no-one with an agenda, that includes activists, politicians, activistic journalists and scientists and, ofcourse, companies and PR-agencies. You can trust these to a certain level, but they always have to be read in the context of their agenda.
Plus, for me personally, when it comes to deepfakes, I work in media production since 1996 and I know my compression artefacts when I see them, so it's also a lot of professional experience.
Basically, you have to read a lot, make your own mistakes and learn who can be trusted, which takes a while. There's no way around basic work, I guess.
Exactly right!
I was aiming at the point that technical solutions (like digital signatures) do not gasp the problem. Because they still need a trust anchor, and as you nicely described above: The anchor can be existing institutions. Technology alone can't possibly solve this issue.