Deep Fakes and Liar's Dividend

[Dill]

Earlier this year (Feb.) Robert Chesney (UTexas Law School) and Danielle Citron (UMaryland Law School) raised an interesting issue which some others have followed up on--the potential for political mischief posed by DEEP FAKES, especially in video form. Recent advances in recording technology have made it easy to construct almost undetectable fake videos of people saying or doing things they normally would not.

The first examples, apparently, came as celebrity pornography (Gal Gadot, Emma Watson), movie stars faces imposed upon porn actors and actress with a high level or realism. Chesney and Citron raise the issue of what happens when, given the ubiquity of the technology now, people turn this new version of DEEP FAKE NEWS to politics. Imagine a video appearing 18 hrs before the upcoming midterm elections begin depicting Trump ordering a hit on a Democrat or calling the wives of prominent Evangelical pastors "horseface," and going viral on social media. The fake would be detected eventually, but not before the damage was done.

Worse still, imagine the effect in foreign policy of Trump preparing to nuke NK or Iran, or giving orders to assassinate a foreign leader. Well, I'll just present their list.

Deep Fakes: A Looming Crisis for National Security, Democracy and Privacy?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/deep-fakes-looming-crisis-national-security-democracy-and-privacy

Fake videos could feature public officials taking bribes, uttering racial epithets, or engaging in adultery.
Politicians and other government officials could appear in locations where they were not, saying or doing horrific things that they did not.
Fake videos could place them in meetings with spies or criminals, launching public outrage, criminal investigations, or both.
Soldiers could be shown murdering innocent civilians in a war zone, precipitating waves of violence and even strategic harms to a war effort.
A deep fake might falsely depict a white police officer shooting an unarmed black man while shouting racial epithets.
A fake audio clip might “reveal” criminal behavior by a candidate on the eve of an election.
A fake video might portray an Israeli official doing or saying something so inflammatory as to cause riots in neighboring countries, potentially disrupting diplomatic ties or even motivating a wave of violence.
False audio might convincingly depict U.S. officials privately “admitting” a plan to commit this or that outrage overseas, exquisitely timed to disrupt an important diplomatic initiative.
A fake video might depict emergency officials “announcing” an impending missile strike on Los Angeles or an emergent pandemic in New York, provoking panic and worse.

The very existence of the technology poses a long-term threat to voter confidence in democratic institutions as well.

The spread of deep fakes will threaten to erode the trust necessary for democracy to function effectively, for two reasons. First, and most obviously, the marketplace of ideas will be injected with a particularly-dangerous form of falsehood. Second, and more subtly, the public may become more willing to disbelieve true but uncomfortable facts. Cognitive biases already encourage resistance to such facts, but awareness of ubiquitous deep fakes may enhance that tendency, providing a ready excuse to disregard unwelcome evidence. At a minimum, as fake videos become widespread, the public may have difficulty believing what their eyes (or ears) are telling them—even when the information is quite real.

There's a fuller account in this rough draft paper
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=655065026069100010000066113008107074103013032009049037108065092108066110024098076076020005033013022048034025081025127001070123047041028055048118086109095107122030086058084016096087127012028074024093015029113067008098112001109024028077074079083103003&EXT=pdf

More below--

[Dill]

An interesting further point of Chesney and Citron relates to the LIAR'S DIVIDEND, a phenomenon probably already ongoing in the wake of the Russian Fake News attacks on the US election, and Trump's (and others) wholesale application of the term to legitimate news.

The liar's dividend emerges as uncertainty about the media veracity enable politicians to denounce factually accurate accounts as "Fake News."

Deep fakes will prove useful in escaping the truth in a second and equally pernicious way. Ironically, this second approach will become more plausible as the public becomes more educated about the threats posed by deep fakes. Imagine a situation in which an accusation is supported by genuine video or audio evidence. As the public becomes more aware of the idea that video and audio can be convincingly faked, some will try to escape accountability for their actions by denouncing authentic video and audio as deep fakes.

Put simply: a skeptical public will be primed to doubt the authenticity of real audio and video evidence. This skepticism can be invoked just as well against authentic as against adulterated content.

Hence the liar’s dividend: this dividend flows, perversely, in proportion to success in educating the public about the dangers of deep fakes. The liar’s dividend would run with the grain of larger trends involving truth skepticism. Most notably, recent years have seen mounting distrust of traditional sources of news. That distrust has been stoked relentlessly by President Trump and like-minded sources in television and radio; the mantra “fake news” has thereby become an instantly recognized shorthand for a host of propositions about the supposed corruption and bias of a wide array of journalists, and a useful substitute for argument when confronted with damaging factual assertions.Whether one labels this collection of attitudes postmodernist or nihilist,133 the fact remains that it has made substantial inroads on public opinion in recent years.

Against that backdrop, it is not difficult to see how “fake news” will extend to “deep-fake news” in the future. As deep fakes become widespread, the public may have difficulty believing what their eyes or ears are telling them
—even when the information is real. In turn, the spread of deep fakes threatens to erode the trust necessary for democracy to function effectively.134

The combination of truth decay and trust decay creates greater space for authoritarianism. Authoritarian regimes and leaders with authoritarian tendencies benefit when objective truths lose their power.135 If the public loses faith in what they hear and see and truth becomes a matter of opinion, then power flows to those whose opinions are most prominent—empowering authorities along the way.136

Cognitive bias will reinforce these unhealthy dynamics.

[Benton]

So... there's Gal Gadot porn out there?

[Dill]

(10-19-2018, 04:10 PM)Benton Wrote: So... there's Gal Gadot porn out there?

Apparently, and pretty realistic.  If the authors are correct, one would need special technology to detect the fakery. 

Could be a considerable market for "fake porn" like that. 

[*michaelsean*]

Well hell with early voting the deep fake would have to be out in September.

[Au165]

Who would have guessed that as we progressed as a nation we became less fit to actually vote. The technology has existed for a couple years but it simply wasn't as easy to do as it is now. A lot of times you can detect it if you know what you are looking for in terms of hobbyist doing it because motions are slightly jerky, or a blending will have a flaw here or there. The reality is when the technology is used for Fraud, like what is proposed here, then those who create it must be prosecuted for Fraud. While it seems scary the article points out that there is technology in the works to detect it. I think what will happen is Youtube and hosting sites will use it due to liability of posting such videos and then rogue websites who post it without detection software to stop it will be held liable as well.

[Benton]

(10-22-2018, 08:29 AM)Au165 Wrote: Who would have guessed that as we progressed as a nation we became less fit to actually vote. The technology has existed for a couple years but it simply wasn't as easy to do as it is now. A lot of times you can detect it if you know what you are looking for in terms of hobbyist doing it because motions are slightly jerky, or a blending will have a flaw here or there. The reality is when the technology is used for Fraud, like what is proposed here, then those who create it must be prosecuted for Fraud. While it seems scary the article points out that there is technology in the works to detect it. I think what will happen is Youtube and hosting sites will use it due to liability of posting such videos and then rogue websites who post it without detection software to stop it will be held liable as well.

And that's most likely how things will move forward.

It's not that different than 15-20 years ago when people realized you could easily and effectively Photoshop someone into a still photo (whole person, face on a body, etc). Publications, web sites and the like don't use photos like that because, in part, of liability issues or standards.

Now... the real issue here... this Gal Gadot video...

[GMDino]

(10-22-2018, 10:42 AM)Benton Wrote: And that's most likely how things will move forward.

It's not that different than 15-20 years ago when people realized you could easily and effectively Photoshop someone into a still photo (whole person, face on a body, etc). Publications, web sites and the like don't use photos like that because, in part, of liability issues or standards.

Now... the real issue here... this Gal Gadot video...

Takes about 5 seconds to search (in incognito mode).  

Probably take about 5 seconds for some of you to watch too. ""

[fredtoast]

I've seen some of these fakes that look 100% real. There was a show about them. One was of an eagle picking up a baby. Another was a guy in a flying suit/jetpack type of thing. When done right they are almost impossible to detect.

[Dill]

(10-22-2018, 10:42 AM)Benton Wrote: And that's most likely how things will move forward.

It's not that different than 15-20 years ago when people realized you could easily and effectively Photoshop someone into a still photo (whole person, face on a body, etc). Publications, web sites and the like don't use photos like that because, in part, of liability issues or standards.

Now... the real issue here... this Gal Gadot video...

This is a serious topic which deserves quite a bit more research than we can carry out on a message board. Whoever finds that video should post a link so we can view it.  To study the technology.

[Dill]

(10-22-2018, 11:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I've seen some of these fakes that look 100% real.  There was a show about them.  One was of an eagle picking up a baby.  Another was a guy in a flying suit/jetpack type of thing.  When done right they are almost impossible to detect.

Did that show a mother in a park tending one child while the eagle swooped down and grabbed the other one, a toddler.  Then dropped it?

If that was fake then I fell for it.

[Dill]

(10-22-2018, 08:29 AM)Au165 Wrote: Who would have guessed that as we progressed as a nation we became less fit to actually vote. The technology has existed for a couple years but it simply wasn't as easy to do as it is now. A lot of times you can detect it if you know what you are looking for in terms of hobbyist doing it because motions are slightly jerky, or a blending will have a flaw here or there. The reality is when the technology is used for Fraud, like what is proposed here, then those who create it must be prosecuted for Fraud. While it seems scary the article points out that there is technology in the works to detect it. I think what will happen is Youtube and hosting sites will use it due to liability of posting such videos and then rogue websites who post it without detection software to stop it will be held liable as well.

This "deep fake" technology is new, but Media fraud is not.

When A Famous Author Ran for Office — And Politics Changed Forever
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/when-an-author-ran-for-of_b_765759.html

In an amazing 1934 upset, ex-socialist author Upton Sinclair — leading one of the great grassroots crusades in our history — won the Democratic primary for governor of California in a landslide and appeared headed for victory in November. To prevent that, his opponents invented the political campaign as we know it today. It also marked Hollywood’s first all-out plunge into politics and the creation of the first “attack ads” on the screen — thanks to Irving Thalberg at MGM.

These attack adds included actors playing average joes who simply "expressed their fears" and asserted falsehoods about Sinclair's campaign.

Especially interesting is how, after the fact, Sinclair researched all the bogus claims made against him in an attempt to get some truth-in-advertising legislation passed.  He was unsuccessful.  It's not clear that voters back then were less gullible than they are now. But I do think politicians and political groups have better learned to harness gullibility and maintain it from election to election. That is what I see in the Fox phenomenon anyway.

[Au165]

(10-22-2018, 02:53 PM)Dill Wrote: This "deep fake" technology is new, but Media fraud is not.

When A Famous Author Ran for Office — And Politics Changed Forever
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/when-an-author-ran-for-of_b_765759.html

In an amazing 1934 upset, ex-socialist author Upton Sinclair — leading one of the great grassroots crusades in our history — won the Democratic primary for governor of California in a landslide and appeared headed for victory in November. To prevent that, his opponents invented the political campaign as we know it today. It also marked Hollywood’s first all-out plunge into politics and the creation of the first “attack ads” on the screen — thanks to Irving Thalberg at MGM.

These attack adds included actors playing average joes who simply "expressed their fears" and asserted falsehoods about Sinclair's campaign.

Especially interesting is how, after the fact, Sinclair researched all the bogus claims made against him in an attempt to get some truth-in-advertising legislation passed.  He was unsuccessful.  It's not clear that voters back then were less gullible than they are now. But I do think politicians and political groups have better learned to harness gullibility and maintain it from election to election. That is what I see in the Fox phenomenon anyway.

I spent a whole day explaining to my high school team I coach that "News" did not stand for Noteworthy events, weather and sports. It was a popular post shared on the internet and they all immediately believed it to be true because it made sense from the explanation. It seems what the internet has done is allow people to be sold with more thorough, even though wrong, explanations that would require further investigation to prove wrong so many simply believe it to be true because it sounds believable.

Basically everyone assumes someone else vetted the information before relaying it to them so they take it as true. Ironically enough this used to be what we relied on actual news reporting to do before it got confused with the mishmash of click bait.

[Dill]

(10-22-2018, 03:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: I spent a whole day explaining to my high school team I coach that "News" did not stand for Noteworthy events, weather and sports. It was a popular post shared on the internet and they all immediately believed it to be true because it made sense from the explanation. It seems what the internet has done is allow people to be sold with more thorough, even though wrong, explanations that would require further investigation to prove wrong so many simply believe it to be true because it sounds believable.

Basically everyone assumes someone else vetted the information before relaying it to them so they take it as true. Ironically enough this used to be what we relied on actual news reporting to do before it got confused with the mishmash of click bait.

It's impossible to vet everything. And you have to (at least provisionally) trust some things while vetting others.

This was manageable 30 years ago. But the flood of competing information claims and realistic-looking websites makes it more difficult.

I keep meeting younger folks in their late teens and early 20s who think it's all fake, or at least claim to trust no one news source any more than any other.  That is bad.  

[fredtoast]

(10-22-2018, 02:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Did that show a mother in a park tending one child while the eagle swooped down and grabbed the other one, a toddler.  Then dropped it?

If that was fake then I fell for it.

Yes.  That is it.

The wealthy model from France who I am dating online told me about it.  Amazing what some people will believe just because it is on the internet.

[Dill]

(10-22-2018, 05:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  That is it.

The wealthy model from France who I am dating online told me about it.  Amazing what some people will believe just because it is on the internet.

Wait, that French model. She's not a red head is she? from Nice?