Want a video of a politician saying "Hitler was right" to cheering masses? Want a video about a president saying it's time to start Nuclear War One?
You can make that.
No it hasn't, not at all.
What do you mean? it most certainly has.
It is much harder to look at a photograph now and say for sure it's real. Before photoshop, there were ways of manipulating photos, but they were much harder and did not yield nearly as good results. You can photoshop people into photos they were not originally in, doing things they have never done. Even Trump is having his hands enlarged in photos.
Maybe you're speaking specifically about "evidence" in the legal sense. I can't speak to that. But there are countless examples where you can't (and shouldn't) believe what you see, because it's not real.
Most doctored images/videos get snuffed out by the media very quickly if they grow viral.
I have a friend who believes in aliens. They showed me a video that someone had put together of "footage". They were seriously showing it to me as evidence, to convince me that they are real, based on this video. I was shocked they were so serious - and having a hard time containing my laughter.
I later found a number of other videos debunking the videos and clips that video was based off of - but my friend still believes in aliens, based on those videos. And this is someone I regularly have "intelligent" conversations with.
This change, the ability to put words in someones mouth, is the next photoshop. And it WILL have consequences to it, good and bad. And we are not prepared for that, as a society - we haven't gotten over photoshop yet.
"Voice recordings are currently considered as strong pieces of evidence in our societies and in particular in jurisdictions of many countries. Our technology questions the validity of such evidence as it allows to easily manipulate audio recordings. This could potentially have dangerous consequences such as misleading diplomats, fraud and more generally any other problem caused by stealing the identity of someone else.
By releasing our technology publicly and making it available to anyone, we want to ensure that there will be no such risks. We hope that everyone will soon be aware that such technology exists and that copying the voice of someone else is possible. More generally, we want to raise attention about the lack of evidence that audio recordings may represent in the near future."
I'm glad the authors addressed this issue pretty forthrightly, but part of me wishes they'd written a bit more about exactly your point. Whether or not recorded speech will continue to be legally binding evidence, I think it's just as important to point out that many people are normally quite happy to take what they hear as solid evidence, especially when it aligns with their prejudices.
This is your first and only post, you have no submissions or favorites, and your account is 193 days old.
I'm very curious (and perplexed) as to why you have linked a video from elsewhere in this thread with no supporting context regarding its relevance other than "hf".
Like we can trust anything a politician says/has said today anyway!
Which would be great for people like Trump. "Trust me, that audio is fake news. Fake!"
Responding to multiple sibling comments.
A random relative; not so much.
http://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2016/how-to-beat-... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enkeltrick
If they really need a voice sample from a relative they could still impost, with voice or not, as insurance person, HR or police and acquire it by simple means if they have any idea about the social graph of their victim.
But also enabling the next gen of "Mom, I'm in Mexican jail. Quickly wire me $2,000 so I can get out." scams.