The surprising part is that someone believed a politician's voice.
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
520 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
59389 readers
3126 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
load more comments
(10 replies)
I already have to send photos of my id or passport for all kinds of services, so it wouldn't really be that different from doing that, just less inconvenient. Like, delivery services ask for a photo of your id.
I have never had them ask for one. I could see them doing that if I went to pick up a package they were holding but I haven't had to do that.
Maybe it's because I get alcohol delivered at some point. I think it's the same thing though, when something needs online verification the workaround right now is to just send a photo of id.
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.
Didn't know where in the tread to reply.
This is being worked on from multiple angles.
In the us apple, Google, Microsoft ++ are working on a common framework for this. (Shocking who are working on this in the us)
The EU has a citizens digital wallet program for the same purpose. These programs are also collaborating so that certificates and proof of personhood/citizenship etc can be exchanged between various actors.
The EU model leans heavily into privacy and user control of data, where you as an individual decides with whom to share your credentials, proof of personhood, etc.
This would lead to many possibilities, like for instance being able to confirm digitally prescriptions for medicine across borders, so you can easily get your medication even if you are traveling in another country, without having to spend time and energy getting signed paperwork send back and forth.
The most simple form of this would be that the system simply verifies that yes, you are indeed a human individual. But can be expanded to confirm citizenship, allow you to share your medical data with institutions, confirm diplomas and professional certification etc.
How about we find whoever did this and throw them in jail for fraud? You know, deterring crime like the law is supposed to do?
Dunno if this is domestic or not. Would be hard to do anything if it's a foreign attack.
There's already a system for it. But to roll that out to everyone would be an administrative nightmare. And tbf, the system of digital certificates is not exactly "clean." There are always issues.
I agree that it would be great to have that, but it just doesn't seem feasible. Perhaps a different system needs to be created.
The people who fall for shit like this don't know what any of that means or would understand it if you tried to explain it to them
cryptographically secure
Isn't this the only part of this that's really important? If you can see me in real life, if I can give you a cryptographically secure way to check whatever I'm sending you in the future, badda bing, mission success. It's only a problem if my code becomes compromised on my end, leaked or something. It requires faith that your friends won't get compromised, but that's pretty much going to be true of any system you might devise there. That's not the job of cryptography, or some document the government has, that's just the job of your own personal security practices to make sure you're not giving around codes and passwords willy nilly. I don't understand why this really needs to be tied to the government or to specific people at all.
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.
Doesn't MFA already work? Don't we have a shared code system?
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
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 guess we can be thankful that there exists safe guards for launching missiles with regards to codes and all.
Anything on who did this?
The GOP can’t win without cheating.
"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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›