I am vaguely aware of what is called photoshopping, and of course I have watched innumerable movies with special effects -- Avatar, for example. My question: Can a frame by frame, pixel by pixel examination of such productions reveal that they are not real unaltered photographs? For example, if a seemingly realistic video surfaced of Trump talking with Kushner about dirty dealing with Russia, could an examination of it show whether it was real?
I need answers for my fantasy life.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Commentary on the Passing Scene by Robert Paul Wolff rwolff@afroam.umass.edu
My Stuff
https://umass-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/rwolff_umass_edu/EkxJV79tnlBDol82i7bXs7gBAUHadkylrmLgWbXv2nYq_A?e=UcbbW0
Coming Soon:
The following books by Robert Paul Wolff are available on Amazon.com as e-books: KANT'S THEORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITY, THE AUTONOMY OF REASON, UNDERSTANDING MARX, UNDERSTANDING RAWLS, THE POVERTY OF LIBERALISM, A LIFE IN THE ACADEMY, MONEYBAGS MUST BE SO LUCKY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE USE OF FORMAL METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.
NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.
NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for Robert Paul Wolff Marx."
Total Pageviews
Search This Blog
Philosopher's Stone
Blog Archive
-
▼
2019
(355)
-
▼
January
(28)
- FUN STUFF
- A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL KATES
- A RESPONSE TO J. W. F.
- GETTING READY
- AN IRRELEVANT FACTOID
- ON THE MEND
- OK, I GIVE UP
- I DON'T KNOW
- KAMALA HARRIS
- THOUGHTS WHILE SUPINE
- A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY
- THAT'S TWO
- THAT'S ONE
- TWIDDLING MY THUMBS
- SMALL PLEASURES IN A DIFFICULT TIME
- A BRIEF THANK YOU
- A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
- FRENCH IMPRESSIONS [NOT IMPRESSIONISTS]
- SUFFICIENT UNTO THE DAY
- HE'S BAAACK
- A QUESTION
- ON THE WAY OUT THE DOOR
- NOBODY'S PERFECT
- BERNIE AND THE BLACK VOTE
- OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES
- JUST SAYIN'
- ADDENDUM
- AND AGAIN, HAPPY NEW YEAR
-
▼
January
(28)
About Me
- Robert Paul Wolff
- As I observed in one of my books, in politics I am an anarchist, in religion I am an atheist, and in economics I am a Marxist. I am also, rather more importantly, a husband, a father, a grandfather, and a violist.
9 comments:
Yes, there are sophisticated tools that use AI to determine if something is off. Whether such evidence is taken seriously in courts is a whole another matter.
See this, for example: http://imageedited.com/about.html It summarizes various characteristics an expert would analyze to determine the likelihood that an image has been edited.
The popular public radio show Radiolab actually did an episode exploring these themes. See https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/breaking-news. They even made this mock up. http://futureoffakenews.com/.
So while it should be possible for experts to tell the fakes (for now at least), it's certainly true that fake news will be much easier to spread. Disconcerting.
Much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive.
Now that sophisticated editing techniques are available and "evolving," everything is suspect, so that seeing is no longer believing . Sorry, but uncertainty prevails.
(But being a philosopher, I assume you already knew that there are no absolute criteria in a relative universe. All "absolute" criteria are stipulations in model construction. Humans need to tell themselves stories in order to establish a foothold. )
Pixel by pixel? No.
You can use a tool like this:
http://fotoforensics.com/
It does a special kind of mathematical transformation that can make certain kinds of editing obvious. I don't know if the professionals can fool it. If you want to see some examples of transformed images, look here:
http://fotoforensics.com/messages.php?challenge=1
It's an arms race between the forgers and the detectives, as per usual: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/30/fake-porn-videos-are-being-weaponized-harass-humiliate-women-everybody-is-potential-target/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.23aa11a03577
If it hasn't already happened definitively, we will definitely see conflicts (or there will definitely be conflicts, even if we don't see them) in the next few years resulting from faked audio/video.
Access to computers and other control systems which might provide you with information about the way the world revolves around technology should be unlimited and total. All information should be free and accessible to all. That is why we at INTEGRATEDHACKS have come come up with a team of highly motivated and dedicated hackers to help you get access to information you are being deprived of. Our services include and are not limited to hacking of social media accounts,email accounts, tracking of phones hacking of bank cards and many more.
Have you ever been hacked? Need to recover your stolen account, Want to monitor your kids,spouse or partner, Change your school results track messages from an email or mobile number and many more, INTEGRATEDHACKS is the one for you. Hundreds of our clients have their phones, social media accounts, emails, servers, may bots and PCs hacked consistently and efficiently. Our professional hackers for hire team is highly qualified and can hack anything or device you desire without giving the target any form of notification which makes us one of the best.
Are you having doubts about your partner ? Worry no more. All your doubts would be cleared.
★ Contact Us For Your Desired Hacking services via : integratedhacks@protonmail.com and experience cyber hacking like never before.
Yes and no. Sometimes the proof is like hoax UFO evidence: if the artifacts of construction are visual, people are convinced by the "pixels and frames" evidence of suturing. But technical proof may consist of somewhat other than visual evidence of authenticity. So it is never a slam dunk when there is nothing to do but trust the technicians, unless there is corroborating evidence. For a parallel example take the use of DNA/ancestry evidence in criminal investigations. It functions in a nexus of gumshoe work, testimony and circumstantial evidence.
There is software developed by Adobe (among others) that can use audio and video samples of a subject's own facial image and voice to construct a seamless shot of the person speaking whatever you want them to say. So analyzing that "pixel wise" would be like asking someone watching a ventriloquist act if the dummy is really speaking. Of course they would answer 'no' but not because of their experience of the show.
Am not even taking into account the increasingly common outrageous discrediting of scientific practice here, so my "yes and no" also stands for not idealizing what forum you're presenting such evidence in.
Post a Comment