Many of the current neural net voice synthesis engines are fantastic and sound extremely real. Amazon Polly for instance. I'd punch in the phrase and do some comparisons, but given the attention those logs will certainly get maybe I won't.

Neural net synth would be even easier to trace. It’s quite hard to set up an aws account via untraceable currency and an untraceable phone. I did it when I was 25 or so, and it took about three weeks of planning and execution just to get the cards and phone.

Given the sophistication of the attack, I wouldn’t say it’s impossible they have neural net experience. But as someone who spent a good chunk of time trying to get Dr Kleiner to sing (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=koU3L7WBz_s) it wasn’t remotely easy a year ago to do this locally.

Using “say foo” in macOS would’ve been the most straightforward solution, I think.

The same difficulty of anonymity arises with the RV itself, a very ostentatious vehicle that not only can be traced with ease, it can be tracked retroactively on virtually every street, every highway, etc.

Regardless, for all we know the person isn't concerned with being caught (and may currently be deceased given that possible human remains have been found).

I bet you could buy one with cash on Craigslist pretty easily though

You're right. I retract my comment; it was fundamentally mistaken.

> it can be tracked retroactively on virtually every street, every highway, etc.

Not virtually. Actually.

NSA et al can do - will they publicly tip that hand for this?

No need to publicly tip your hand. Just follow that trail of evidence, then use parallel construction to produce a different trail that you reveal publicly.

> Not virtually. Actually.

"virtually" also means "almost", which is what GP was using it for.

Are you a bot? Because your profile makes me think you're a bot. I mean no disrespect.

Some say I am, but I like to think there's a little bot in all of us.

>given the attention those logs will certainly get maybe I won't

Siri, detonate this bomb in incognito mode

Look at that chilling effect go!

Seems to be Microsoft Anna:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B--BNdnuvA

My theory, and the most untraceable way to do it today, would be to use recordings out of movies or video games, there must be dozen of them available.

Unless you have those movies and video games already on your hard drive, downloading them will create a log somewhere that could be traceable. :/ Windows TTS on a device not connected to the internet is a better choice. (I don't know why we are trying to give them ideas!)

No need for the games you have all the material on youtube.

That's my point. If you go search on YT for those videos, you're leaving a digital trail that can be easily traced back to you.

Simply using the "say" command on a mac would work.

If they do, it will be a case of no good deed going unpunished.

It's a good deed that they broadcast this message?

Why a rational human would broadcast this message-

a) The penalties if there were deaths would be much, much more severe. The manpower involved in the hunt would be exponentially larger.

b) They have some other goal that would be sabotaged if there were deaths.

c) They have morality and can rationalize bombing buildings, but not killing people.

This isn't a "good deed". It's a presumably rational person playing the situation.

Isn't acting out of a sense of morality the definition of a 'good deed'?

Granted, bombing stuff hardly classifies but if you decide it's necessary to bomb something, preventing unnecessary harm for moral reasons could still be seen as a 'good deed'.

No. Some people think killing Jews is moral, for instance.

Most violence that gets carried out is for purposes the perpetrator considers moral whether it's "snitches get stitches" or "They cheated on me" or "His friend killed one of my friends and this is just vengeance."

Yep, as long as you can explain that someone is a bigger monster than you are you can justify yourself killing anyone.

Indeed, but isn't that actually an argument for what constitutes a 'good deed' being highly subjective, since moral frameworks seem to be?

>This isn't a "good deed". It's a presumably rational person playing the situation.

Why not both? A deed can be both good and rational.

Reducing the harm of a purposeful, voluntary action -- maybe just to make it personally palatable to your own morality or mission -- doesn't seem to meet the threshold for a "good deed".

Less of a bad deed, sure. But given that they still did the very dangerous thing, no not a good deed.

The context I replied to implied that tracking a bomber by a warning they gave would be "punishing" a "good deed". That seems dubious.

>The context I replied to implied that tracking a bomber by a warning they gave would be "punishing" a "good deed". That seems dubious.

Oh yeah, sorry, I missed the context. It's a good deed, but not good enough to outweigh, you know, bombing. The recording should be traced like any other part of the bomb.