Also signatures and the like only work for things where you actively attest. What if it's a supposed photo, video, or other claims that a person did (or did not do) something. Sadly we know eyewitness testimony actually is replete with errors... which is why heretofore "roll the video tape" (you're at least a Gen X'er or older if you recall video tapes) has been what courts relied upon: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ What do we do if that's now questioned? Watermarking of photos, audio, and videos can be overcome - and, sadly, may actually super-empower either surveillance states or authoritarian states to "control" media. So free and pluralistic societies will be especially challenged here? On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 5:08 PM David Lang via Nnagain < nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > signatures work, but how do you know what signatures to trust? the current > approach of 'trust signatures where they have paid one of a few companies' > is > not going to work. There will need to be some sort of decentralized > reputation > system where you can pick who you trust > > Yes, some people will chose to trust people who feed them fakes. That is > better > than giving any one entity the ability to declare anything as "true, don't > you > dare question it" (as we have seen over the last few years) > > David Lang > > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2024, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 15:17:12 -0500 > > From: Dave Taht via Nnagain > > To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard > this > > time! > > Cc: Dave Taht > > Subject: Re: [NNagain] The growing challenges of discerning authentic vs. > > inauthentic information and identity > > > > Basically I am interested in the intersection between politics and the > > internet in the context of this list, which is broader than the NN > > issue. So I appreciate monday conversation starters like these. > > > > In my case, I often have to revert to thinking about the present in > > terms of what used to be science fiction. "Interface" - upon > > cogitating about what the coming election will look like came to mind > > - https://www.amazon.com/Interface-Stephen-Bury/dp/0553572407 > > > > When I first saw the deepfakes Pr0n phenomenon a few years ago, I had > > my oh-ghu moment, as I realized once tools like that got into > > everyone's hands the truth and authenticity of any form of media begin > > to vanish, and the recent rise of the LLMs *almost* put the finish to > > it. Thankfully the LLMs (so far) have a terrible tendency to > > hallucinate which is often easily detectable, and overall, the > > technoliterati have managed to expel really bad ideas like > > crypto-grift, web3, and so on in the last few years. Web3 investment > > is down 70% this year... > > > > I now wish very much that the concept of "whuffie" existed in the real > > world, but the flight to mastodon, twitter's addition of community > > notes, most of newspapers moving to a for-pay model, and in general, > > the innoculation of the populace at large to distrust everything they > > learn on line is well underway which I find some comfort in. > > > > Promoting widespread skepticism and disbelief are powerful tools, but > > trying to find guidelines to what is actually truthful harder. For > > example, I read wikipedia's talk page on everything controversial. Too > > few do that. I recently sat through fox news with my mom, because her > > blood pressure was too low, and it served well to "improve" that, and > > me, take a lisinopril. > > > > Life's just a ride, tho, you know? > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_Out_in_the_Magic_Kingdom > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 9:32 AM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain > > wrote: > >> > >> Dear NNAgain’ers, > >> > >> Today on a different listserv, I joined a discussion on what I sense > will be a pressing issue across multiple sectors in 2024. I recognize this > is not NN-related and so if it isn’t of interest, I apologize in advance. > However as most of us have technology background here, my sense is we > generally have a better sense of the looming issue than non-technical folks > at the moment. Below I outline some of the contours of the evolving problem > space, and invite each of you to share your thoughts as I sense the > diversity of perspectives here might help with brainstorming potential > solutions necessary for civil societies to continue: > >> > >> Premise: We are at the precipice of an extended era where > inauthenticity vs. authenticity will be difficult to discern, that that > involves multiple forms of content including biometrics and more. > >> > >> In isolated pockets, governments are becoming aware of this - however > it’s going to be really difficult for pluralistic societies like the U.S. > where any of the Estates that traditionally would have a role to play in > verifying the authentic vs. inauthentic nature of something have had public > trust in them as arbiters eroding. And it doesn’t help that both politics > and advertisement rely on presenting things as 100% authentic when they’re > often only somewhat so (or, to be more generous, mix facts with lots of > beliefs). > >> > >> Not supporting autocracies, however they have a bit of a “home field” > advantage here because there is only one singular narrative - and anyone > who questions it can be fired/isolated, imprisoned/disappeared, or > killed/executed. Tools of such regimes, to include filtering, censorship, > and repression - will be used to ensure only one narrative (authentic or > not, mostly likely the latter) is seen by a majority of their population. > Pluralistic societies will have it much harder, and the last ten years will > pale in comparison to the challenges of sensemaking in a world flooded by > both media and mediums of questionable authenticity. > >> > >> Back in 2019-2020, I did my darnest to connect Pablo and an additional > People-Centered Internet expert with Salesforce that has a lot of CRM data > with the proposal that SF could provide a feature where, as part of the > CRM, “out of band” questions could be included to do some sort of > additional level of trust that the entity on the other end was who they > claimed to be. Unfortunately that pitch was overshadowed by larger concerns > that SF’s software, give some of its features, could be misused in ways not > intended by them (think about ways akin to Cambridge Analytica) and they > were trying to figure out how they could incorporate features to prevent > actors from misusing/abusing their software in ways not intended by them as > a company. > >> > >> 2024 is going to be hard. Manipulation of what people appear to see, > hear, sense - and thus know - is becoming sadly easier. > >> > >> Meanwhile understanding of the importance of triangulation, > triangulation, triangulation from different perspective to discern > authenticity vs. inauthenticity remains time-consuming and hard. Perhaps we > need to consider standing up private sector Dun & Bradstreet-like entities > for identity and other important adjudicatory functions - however that > doesn’t immediately solve the issue of how to help the public in a would > experiencing a flood of questionable content, information, and identities? > And who “watches” the adjudicators? > >> > >> David Bray, PhD Principal, LeadDoAdapt Ventures, Inc. > >> Loomis Innovation Council Co-Chair & Distinguished Fellow > >> Henry S. Stimson Center, Business Executives for National Security > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Nnagain mailing list > >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > > > > > > > > -- > > 40 years of net history, a couple songs: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E > > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos > > _______________________________________________ > > Nnagain mailing list > > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >