Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government United States News Politics

Congress To Investigate Deepfakes (cnn.com) 165

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
The House Intelligence Committee will next week examine the risks posed by deepfakes, artificial intelligence technology that can create realistic-looking fake videos, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said this week. From a report: Schiff, a California Democrat, said he feared that Russia could engage in a "severe escalation" of its disinformation campaign targeting the United States ahead of the 2020 US presidential election. "And the most severe escalation might be the introduction of a deep fake -- a video of one of the candidates saying something they never said," Schiff said.

Schiff made the comments during an interview with CNN's Washington Bureau Chief Sam Feist at the Council on Foreign Relations on Tuesday. He said that while the doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that went viral on social media two weeks ago was not a deepfake, it was an example of how manipulated media could be used. "That was what's called a cheap fake; very easy to make, very simple to make, real content just doctored," Schiff sad. "But if you look back at how impactful the Mitt Romney videotape about the 47% was, you could imagine how a videotape that is more incendiary could be election-altering."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress To Investigate Deepfakes More

Congress To Investigate Deepfakes

Comments Filter:

  • We're getting ahead of ... (Score:3)

    by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Friday June 07, 2019 @03:16PM (#58727070)

    ... the "pee," video drop from Russia.

  • This is how they'll play off any instance of Biden sundowning or slurring his words

    • No, because he's on the campaign trail so there will be multiple independent recordings of whatever he does.

      I agree however that even a credible threat of deepfakes will be enough to sow plenty of discord and conspiracy theories such as yours.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        No, because ... there will be multiple independent recordings of whatever he does

        They are imagining a Beowulf Cluster of deep fakers.

    • Yeah, a potential president slurring his speech could be problem for the United Shtathes.
      But I'm sure a few brave anomenoussss patriots will get down to the oranges, the oranges of the problem.

  • The election period will be so much more exciting. Hard to beat the leaked Powell emails, though (juicy dish [politico.com]).

    After the Muller investigation turned up nothing, I didn't think the Ds had any chance of unseating Trump. But Warren is working hard and turning into a strong challenger. If she keeps it up, it's going to be a great election.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      After the Muller investigation turned up nothing

      I don't know about the Muller investigation, but you might want to read the report on the Mueller investigation. I think it would disagree with your assessment that nothing was turned up.

      Incase you can't find the link on your favorite far right leaning entertainment site, here you go:

      https://www.justice.gov/storag... [justice.gov]

      • I think it would disagree with your assessment that nothing was turned up.

        If it turned something up good enough to keep Trump from being re-elected, you would have just quoted that part instead of linking to the whole thing and having me guess what you are thinking of.

        Trump might be corrupt and bad, but the result of the Meuller investigation isn't enough to keep him from getting re-elected.

    • "After the Muller investigation turned up nothing," = Exactly a false characterization entirely. Trump cannot be prosecuted while in office, that's Mueller's bottom line, but he certainly found multiple instances of Trump breaking the law.

      Maybe you didn't mean what you said or meant to say something else, but what you said is exactly 100% false. Ask Paul Manafort about Rikers.

    • It's quite doubtful that Warren gets the nomination. Biden is the current favorite and I suspect that he's the party's choice as well and we know how difficult it is to get around that. If for some reason Biden falls out of favor or some huge scandal explodes in his face (sure he's a gaff master, but I don't believe he's actually done anything) Sanders is the next obvious candidate and a first choice for many of the same people who might otherwise support Warren.

      I kind of feel bad for Warren and I think

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The DNA test simply vindicated what she had always said. She never claimed to be like "half" or even a quarter native. If that's the biggest gripe anyone has with her, they're ignoring Drumpf's 10,000+ lies to do so. = Idiots who don't matter.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        Personally I hope Yang gets the nomination.

        I hope he does too. I heard Yang talk and his speech gave me pause. I honestly don't think he stands a chance in hell but I strange things have happened. Right down to it I would rather see Yang in the Whitehouse than Warren, Bernie, or Biden.

        • I like how people who complain about the national debt shut up as soon as someone wants to give them $1000/month.
          Don't get me wrong, I want my $1000/month too. But I don't ever complain about national debt.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      The election period will be so much more exciting. Hard to beat the leaked Powell emails, though (juicy dish).

      I think the debates are going to be far more entertaining than the actual election. It's already obvious to everyone that Trump has 2020 in the bag. That is why the Democrats are not bring in the heavy hitters for this election.

      There is that Krazy Klown Car show that the democrats currently has but nobody is expecting most of these clowns to even make the debate stage. The most likely that Trump will be facing in 2020, will be Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and possibly Elizabeth Warren. While none of the

      • Who is a heavy hitter in the Democratic party? Who are you thinking of?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by jwhyche ( 6192 )

          You know, that is a good question. Come to think about Biden, Bernie, and Pocahontas is pretty much the best the democrats can field. Biden has 8 years of Obama baggage, Bernie is just crazy, and Pocahontas got caught in a lie, and that beer stunt didn't help ether.

          2020 is looking to be more entertaining after all.

          • Think about it though, if being caught in a lie mattered, Trump would be gone.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by jwhyche ( 6192 )

              If being caught in a lie mattered they would all be gone. The things is Warren was called out as a liar, doubled down and continued to lie. Then tied to prove the lie and failed in the most spectacular way.

              An the truth be told most of Trump's lies are minor compared to Warren, Bernie, Bidden, and the democratic party period.

  • We have to create a visible bottomless pit to throw the real fakes into so to get people to think for themselves instead of following some politicians sales pitch that more often than not doesn't pan out when they are elected/hired.

    Founders of United States fought for & established, summed up by Thomas Jefferson, A Government Of, For, And By the People. Inherently making it a requirement of the people to be informed of what their business of government is doing.
    &
    "We the People of the United States,

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

      We have to create a visible bottomless pit to throw the real fakes into so to get people to think for themselves instead of following some politicians sales pitch that more often than not doesn't pan out when they are elected/hired.

      Just lol if you think people will think for themselves!
      People will continue to get an idea, and then only search out things that agree with said worldview. Anything counter to that is a conspiracy to produce misinformation.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      We have to create a visible bottomless pit to throw the real fakes into so to get people to think for themselves instead of following some politicians sales pitch that more often than not doesn't pan out when they are elected/hired.

      Yes let's drown out all the real shady stuff politicians do with fake shady stuff politicians didn't do, that's sure to keep them honest. It's good to think for yourself, but if you can't figure out what party or candidate aligns with your interests because it's all noise and lies you're lost in the fog. That's already the modern propaganda war, in the past they might have tried to keep a lid on things. Today you just dial it up to 11 and blast away more or less plausible fakes and when real news comes alon

  • While this seems like a terrible weight to put on candidates, a presidential candidate will likely have to have every minute of his public campaigning officially logged (with video and location data). While this doesn't stop the fakes from being made, it at the very least places doubt on the veracity of any alleged videos out there (real or fake).

    • Re:The treatment to kill fake vids: their own logg (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday June 07, 2019 @03:37PM (#58727204) Journal

      a presidential candidate will likely have to have every minute of his public campaigning officially logged

      If somebody is going to frame a politician, they'd probably depict them in private setting, like at a friend's home, not out and about among the public. That reduces potential cross-reference-able sources.

      • True - And sorry that I wasn't clear in my original post. What I meant was the candidate's life would need to become as close to 100% public as possible. They would have to be a recording of what he did everyday, in an unending stream, from the moment he's up and dressed until he's going down for the night (sans truly personal stuff) - all with a timestamp. Almost like The Truman Show...

        The fakes would only be able to say, "No - that's all fake. He was actually HERE at that date and time, "Everyone on welfa

    • That won't help. The producer of the deep fake can just say it was recorded at some time in the past, before that careful logging began. Even for something allegedly more recent, a little vagueness about the exact time and date could make it difficult to disprove.

      Video and audio recordings are quickly eroding as standards of proof, much in the same sense that still photos have. Soon, we won't be able to trust their authenticity much at all. Strange times indeed.

  • According to you-know-who, Congress is already a deep fake. Thus, this is redundant.

  • Still waiting for my binder full of womerns.

  • Wow, didn't see that coming (Score:5, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Friday June 07, 2019 @03:51PM (#58727286)

    You guys immediately went all political with this.

    Me, I just figured it's an excuse for those old farts in Congress to spend hours watching porn on the taxpayer dime. Congressman Jones: "It's shameful how they put Gal Gadot's face on that body to make it look like she was repeatedly having sex with three guys! I had to keep studying it for hours, looking closely for the tiny hints showing it was a fake!"

  • More Muh Russia (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Everything is Russa's fault, and if it isn't, it will be. Meanwhile, they will defend Israel's consistent meddling in our democracy to their dying breath.

  • Let's face it, there's what, one coder in all of Congress? They're not "investigating" they're drooling on themselves as various people desperately try to explain to idiots what deepfakes even are.

  • Deepfakes represent a serious threat to democracy. The combination of deepfakes and freedom of speech can make it very difficult for the public to know what is real and what isn't.

    I don't see a solution to the problem, so I hope someone does.

    • In Soviet Russia, Freedom deepfakes YOU!

    • Cryptography, maybe. Publishers of recordings will probably end up using digital signatures to discourage alteration.

      It could be a boon for the mainstream press. For better or worse, clout and public trust could win them back the influence they've been losing to social media and the blogosphere.

      • I think you are right that there is a technical solution in theory - but convincing non-experts that it works is going to be difficult. Given how often hacks are found, it may also be difficult to convince experts. Bugs will be found in encryption algorithms - and that is separate from "experts" who will take money to lie one way or the other.

        I think video has been the unofficial standard of truth ever since "photographic evidence" no longer could be. Think of the times where a politician claims to no

  • I was hoping for jokes about congress watching porn. Instead itâ(TM)s just the usual Russia bots arguing with each other.

  • In a country with simultaneously the largest economy on the globe and a large population that refuses to believe that it is even globe-shaped, I'm not even sure what deepfakes can add! I'm convinced that the percentage of people who understand the modern world has fallen below 50% and the rest are just bluffing along, getting angry about stuff Fox News says or buying healing crystals to stop all the negativity in the air!

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close