I guess I agree that the 'trusted computing' stuff it seems like they're trying to do is a little scary, but the tech isn't really there yet, at least not on the desktop (look at the fiasco that is Intel SGX) and it's happening with or without whatever this CAI thing is.

I guess a world where your iPhone's camera sends signed frames to the processor's secure enclave which processes them and signs them with a key signed by Apple is... a little different from today? They do basically this for Face ID today.

Basically a large group of companies are forming a group to create an agreed upon fingerprinting system for 'content' (read: everything) to destroy privacy in the name of 'fighting disinformation'.

Is there a privacy-respecting solution that you prefer?

Don't have a good enough social credit because you shared an opinion somebody doesn't like one too many times? Intel and Microsoft will just remotely brick all your devices.

> Is there a privacy-respecting solution that you prefer?

Yeah, it's called being media literate, using my brain and being vigilant. I don't need Pat Gelsinger, Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, Shantanu Narayen, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey or any other power hungry jackass telling me what to think.

If it's all opt-in (and otherwise anonymous), doesn't that solve the privacy issue?

I'm definitely not advocating for the OP solution, which is why I asked if anyone knew of alternatives.

It starts off with opt in, then they do an update to now opt out, then then do an update to make it harder to opt-out and next thing we know this is something everyone has to live with.

But the main problem is the people most vulnerable to fake media are already bamboozled by bad Photoshop jobs. I don't see how any signing scheme will help.

I have definitely fallen victim to that one myself, and have pushed that argument when considering Apple's walled garden in iOS, and how much that has assisted me personally in not having to provide tech support for members of my family.

Unfortunately, between these arguments, and the continued push of individual/consumer responsibility and "vote with your wallet", the vast majority of people do not focus their attention on how technology platforms work, instead focusing their interest and energy in other areas, and will "vote with their wallet" for whatever is the simplest solution at the time.

First order effects are generally not considered when it's not something you care that much about. Second and third order effects are definitely not in mind.

The only people who care enough to give up all privacy on the internet in exchange are deeply misunderstanding what normal people care about. Uncle bob would much rather the meme he made about weed not trace back to him or get to his employer with his fingerprint.

whether some video was filmed in xy doesn't matter unless you're in some sort of political crisis. Bob isn't. You're using a fictional bob to represent your own desires and present them as 'everyman issues'.

Bob doesn't care, and if he did he'd already use authentication. This is your problem, not bob's, but you're using a fake bob as some kind of 'personal shield' for an opinion leaning towards sacrificing freedom and privacy for very little in return.

What real bob wants most is probably less of you interfering in what he can see and read. He's not your kid and your intrusion on his freedom to read and speak are aggression against him.

Edit: don't get me wrong, _not_ doing that for children is evil. But, the results thus far do speak for themselves... And uncle Bob will not take being sent back to middle school all that well.

You have this idea that society is a monolith you can keep people in and out of based on the results of an algorthm, and that's only true for the most authoritarian and oppressive regimes.

That's the world you're trying to create. Social Credit scores as maintained by facebook, etc.

It's truly repulsive.

Almost everyone get's swimming lessons and tests. And yet, and this might really blow your mind, you can still actually go swimming without actually having had passed the test. No SWAT team will barge down your door and take you away if you go swimming.

Then whats the purpose of the test? Tests are scores used to determine something. You're talking about forcing people to take a test to do what, exactly? Or is it just to indoctrinate them with whatever the test-maker (because it will change every election) comes up with? A thing you must study for but with no reprecussions? Ya right.

Once you create a certification for it, it will become a private passport for access to goods or services, or it will be meaningless. In both cases its either a waste or evil.

I'm not sure why you keep going down this dark path which I didn't even touch on remotely. You just completely imagine it.

They also fall for non-deepfaked media as well, and spearphishing, and so on. The greatest threat vector has always been the wetware.

The possibility of this being opt-in is so unlikely it probably not worth discussing.

I don't have an answer per se, but if your answer is some sort of content blockchain so everything is traceable, then it doesn't matter that I don't have the answer. That's so repulsive as to not require an alternate solution. It's like giving yourself a lobotomy because you have a headache. It's the wrong answer full stop.

The big problem now is semantic forensics - taking media out of context and spinning a new narrative.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/5/18251736/deepfake-propagan...

https://contentauthenticity.org/our-members

I agree that the project sounds like garbage.

The problem comes when it's built into the hardware so you are forced to sign all documents.