Re:Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life
by briffle on Friday November 22, 2019 @05:44PM
(#21610897)
I get your point your making, but I think your reacting a bit harshly. We don't need one regulation that solves all our problems. We can have 'defense in depth'.
Current laws that put microdot detection in color scanners will not deter huge resources to counterfeiting like state backed operations. But they do prevent the local meth junkie down the road from making a bunch of fake 20's to get his next fix.
At the sametime, the paper that we use is also highly regulated. Its not impossible to get something that is similar, but its not easy. (and not cheap).
The points of all these layers, is to prevent the casual and common crimes. By doing that, you can spend your resources on the larger operations.
Re:Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life
by gambiting on Friday November 22, 2019 @05:15PM
(#21610699)
It just reminds me of my 85-year old grandfather who still in 2019 maintains that photocopiers should be banned for private ownership because people can make illegal copies of documents on them.
Which "enemy" do you envision would use deep fakes for a nefarious purpose, yet will stop short once they realize there are - gasp! - regulations around them? And as far as I'm aware, at least in the United States, there are no regulations requiring the use of microdots in printers or copiers, they're done of the manufacturers' own accord to aid law enforcement.
The idea that we should have ill-informed, knee-jerk regulations in reaction to every mildly upsetting technological fad is antithetical to everything the vast majority of technologists believe in and stand for.