Is anyone else worried about how naive this policy is?
The solution here is for important institutions to get onboard with the public key infrastructure, and start signing anything they want to certify as authentic.
The culture needs to shift from assuming video and pictures are real, to assuming they are made the easiest way possible. A signature means the signer wants you to know the content is theirs, nothing else.
It doesn't help to train people to live in a pretend world where fake content always has a warning sticker.
I see a lot of confusing authenticity with accuracy. Someone can sign the statement "Obama is white" but that doesn't make it a true statement. The use of PKI as part of showing provenance/chain of trust doesn't make any claims about the accuracy of what is signed. All it does is assert that a given identity signed something.
It's not about what is being signed, it's about who signed it and whether you trust that source. I want credible news outlets to start signing their content with a key I can verify as theirs. In that future all unsigned content is by definition fishy. PKI is the only way to implement trust in a digital realm.
> It's not about what is being signed, it's about who signed it
Yeah, that's what I said about PKI. I also said there is confusion between provenance of a statement and its accuracy. Just because it's signed doesn't mean anything about its accuracy, but those that confuse the two will think that just because it is signed, or because it was signed by a certain "trustworthy" party, that indicates accuracy. PKI does not establish the trustworthiness of the other party, it only gives you confidence in the identity of the party who signed something.
George Santos could sign his resume. We know it was signed by George Santos. And yet nothing in the resume could be considered accurate (or even a falsehood) purely because it is signed. That it was proven to be signed by George Santos via PKI is independent of the fact that George Santos is a known liar.
Why do you need a whole PKI for that, rather than just, say, a link to the news outlet's website where the content is hosted? People have already been doing that pretty much since the web was created.
PKI has been around for, what, 30 years? Image authentication is just not going to happen at this point, because everyone's got too used to post-processing and it's a massive hassle for something that ultimately doesn't matter because real people use other processes to determine whether things are true or not.
Example: a video shows a group of police beating up a man for a minor crime (say littering). The video is signed by Michael Smith (the random passerby who filmed it on his phone). The video is published to Instagram and shared widely.
How do you expect people to take the authenticity of this video?
This is about as realistic as the next generation of congress people ending up 40 years younger.
We literally have politicians talking about pouring acid on hardware and expect these same bumbleheads to keep their signing keys safe at the same time. The average person is far too technologically illiterate to do that. Next time you go to grandmas house you'll learn she traded her signing key for chocolate chip cookies.
I imagine it would be something handled pretty automatically for everyone.
If Apple wanted to sign every photo and document the iPhone they could probably make the whole user experience simple enough for most grandmas.
Some people will certainly give away their keys, just like bank accounts and social security numbers today, but those people probably aren't terribly concerned with proving the ownership of their online documents.
>I imagine it would be something handled pretty automatically for everyone.
Then your imagination fails you.
If it is automatic/easy, then you have the 'easy key' problem, such as the key is easy to steal or copy. For example is it based on your apple account? Then what occurs with an account is stolen? Is it based on a device, what happens when the device is stolen?
Who's doing the PKI? Is it going to be like https, but for individuals (this has never really worked at this scale and with revocation). Like most social media is posting content taken by randos on the internet.
When your account is stolen someone can create "official" documents in your name and impersonate you. There could be a system for invalidating your key after a certain date to help out with those situations.
For prominent people who actually have to worry about being impersonated they could provide their own keys.
The infrastructure could be managed by multiple groups or a singular one like the government. The point isn't to be a perfect system, it's to generate enough trust that what you're looking at is genuine and not a total fraud.
In a world where AI bots are generating fake information about everyone in the world, that kind of system could certainly be built and be useful.
> The culture needs to shift from assuming video and pictures are real, to assuming they are made the easiest way possible.
That sounds like a dystopia, but I guess we're going into that direction. I expect that a lot of fringe groups like flat-earthers, lizard people conspiracy, war in Ukraine is fake, will become way more mainstream.
The solution here is for important institutions to get onboard with the public key infrastructure, and start signing anything they want to certify as authentic.
The culture needs to shift from assuming video and pictures are real, to assuming they are made the easiest way possible. A signature means the signer wants you to know the content is theirs, nothing else.
It doesn't help to train people to live in a pretend world where fake content always has a warning sticker.