> It used to be if you saw a video or a photo depicting an event you could be pretty sure that what you're looking at actually happened.
That is only true because we are in a wierd transition period. Before photography, there was no way to create an accurate snapshot of an event. Since then, it was easy to take a photo, but hard to fake one. For the first time in history we were able to make visual proof of events. Of course, since the beginning, people have been trying to fake photographs. That has been mostly detectable, but is getting better and better all the time.
(This also gives us a certain fetishism for unedited images in journalism. I understand where it comes from, but I think it is objectively wierd that certain manipulations are allowed, and others considered scandalous.)
I believe we are moving to a period, where we can no longer consider photos to proove facts. People will resist for quite some time (as they are resisting the fact that the internet allows us to copy information for free). There will be legal push-back, image editing will be scandalized... but eventually, the technology will be come so good and ubiquotious that nobody can rely on pictures anymore.
I also believe it is a good thing! We are becoming more and more nervous about our image on the internet, about private photos leaking out there, ruining our employability etc.. What happens if everybody can say: "OK Google, make a photo of Jason where he is drunk and riding a donkey" and you get a convincing fake? Eventually, we must adapt, and these worries will go away.
We will have to learn to treat pieces of information not due their origin, but only due to their content.
For a current example: You got a picture of President Trump with prosititues in Moscow? I don't care if that really happened or not - I'm not prude, and it doesn't have immediate relevance. Let him have fun. What I do care about: Does the story fit my image of him? Do I think he is capable of doing that? Does this have explaining power? Note it might as well be a painting or a blog post instead of a photo.
In my old days it seems I am going full-on postmodern...
> Faked pictures are more convincing than real pictures because you can set them up to look real. Understand this: All pictures are faked. As soon as you have the concept of a picture there is no limit to falsification.
The Place of Dead Roads by William S. Burroughs (1983)
Using trusted computing and related technologies it should be entirely feasible to build tamper-proof cameras that produce provably-real photos, including trusted timestamp. It should be a small step for example for Apple to add such a feature to their future iPhones, given the layers of security they already have in their hardware.
you are talking about secure infrastructure, but the image itself can be still faked. And no such infrastructure is safe, in the end, when given entirely to the end user (modify camera sensor, transfer signed image to an intact device).
Yes. And the problem exists only when a select few can manipulate photos. If everybody and their mother can do it, then indeed pictures will lose their credibility, and there is no problem (but there may be other problems, such as where do we get real evidence from now).
That is only true because we are in a wierd transition period. Before photography, there was no way to create an accurate snapshot of an event. Since then, it was easy to take a photo, but hard to fake one. For the first time in history we were able to make visual proof of events. Of course, since the beginning, people have been trying to fake photographs. That has been mostly detectable, but is getting better and better all the time.
(This also gives us a certain fetishism for unedited images in journalism. I understand where it comes from, but I think it is objectively wierd that certain manipulations are allowed, and others considered scandalous.)
I believe we are moving to a period, where we can no longer consider photos to proove facts. People will resist for quite some time (as they are resisting the fact that the internet allows us to copy information for free). There will be legal push-back, image editing will be scandalized... but eventually, the technology will be come so good and ubiquotious that nobody can rely on pictures anymore.
I also believe it is a good thing! We are becoming more and more nervous about our image on the internet, about private photos leaking out there, ruining our employability etc.. What happens if everybody can say: "OK Google, make a photo of Jason where he is drunk and riding a donkey" and you get a convincing fake? Eventually, we must adapt, and these worries will go away.
We will have to learn to treat pieces of information not due their origin, but only due to their content.
For a current example: You got a picture of President Trump with prosititues in Moscow? I don't care if that really happened or not - I'm not prude, and it doesn't have immediate relevance. Let him have fun. What I do care about: Does the story fit my image of him? Do I think he is capable of doing that? Does this have explaining power? Note it might as well be a painting or a blog post instead of a photo.
In my old days it seems I am going full-on postmodern...