There is one salient point the article misses, and that is when it says that "in the future" video and audio recordings might not be admissible in court (due to the ease with which they can be faked). That day has come and gone. We are already living in the universe of easily-faked digital recordings. That courts continue to allow such evidence is a damning truth about our whole culture: technology has surpassed our ability to keep up as a group with the implications of advancement. Another article in todays paper bemoans the inability of virtually all police agencies to deal with online crime. They simply cannot work with it. Policing is stuck in dated realms of physicality. The very notion of policing, a guy in a blue suit with a gun who comes to take you away, or stops a street robbery in progress, is hopelessly passe. Unfortunately all those men with guns are still out there on the street, doing the only things they know how to do. This creates the wild-wild-west scenario online and puts excessive pressure on physical liberty with more and more cops chasing fewer and fewer "actual" criminals. The result is the same as always - intense focus on "the usual suspects". And so we get Ferguson, MO.
3
Given what the authors say about how false stories surviveas news, their use of Sen. Gillibrand's name in this piece is shockingly reckless. The Times must now do everything possible to make sure this unfortunate reference to an actual person does not spread for an Internet eternity as "news." But I fear there's little that can now be done to make their imagined nonsense entirely disappear. Shame on the Times!
5
Scary!
1
Yuck. Just yuck.
1
Great. I'm already having health issues attributable to having been stuck in stress/anxiety overdrive since 11/8/16. Part of which has been essentially the termination of a 24 yr. marriage to a pod person who now speaks only foxlimbaughhannityinsanity. Now this? The expression "just shoot me now" comes to mind because "keep calm and carry on" just isn't working anymore.
2
Our current president openly supported neo-nazis, admitted to groping women, paid off a porn star whom he cheated on his wife with, made fun of the mentally-ill, asked Russia to hack his political opponant on national television etc. What do you need fake video for when the bar is already this low?
2
Imagine the day when a once proud and well informed electorate awakened to a collective I-don't-give-a damn-mentality. That day is here.
1
While technology has advanced over the past 10,000 years, humans have not.
Each new technology from writing (cuneiform), to printing (Gutenberg)' to telegraph, radio, TV, to Internet has each increase both the speed and reach of propagation of information both good and bad. Far more than any concern for any given advance in technology, my concern lies with the 'consumers'. There exists very practical methods for baloney detection - Sagan's baloney detection kit, or the CRAP (currency, reliability, authority, point/purpose) test, or Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". There is nothing anyone can do about the advancement of technology.
1
Farrell and Perlstein are right. It is hard to imagine how democracy can function when it becomes impossible for ordinary people, maybe even experts, to distinguish between fake news and real news. We are already well down this path, with Facebook spreading fake news, but fake video could make things a lot worse.
It is hard to imagine a solution. Censorship is terrifying, and probably would fail anyway. Deterrence is inherently corrupting. Suppose someone makes a fake video of Gillibrand. Don't count on me to make one as bad attacking whoever did it. I don't want to descend into that kind of slime. And if someone, nevertheless, did, how would any of us know, at the end of the day, what "reality" was real? Everything would be up for grabs.
Politics is ultimately about deciding what is true and what isn't. We've been doing a crappy job of it lately in America. Climate scientists are being ignored while Trump got elected, telling us all how Obama was a foreign born, Muslim, socialist. It's hard to imagine things getting worse, but they probably will.
1
This reminds me of a sci-fi tale I read in my youth where it posed the possibility of swarms of extremely small robots that could fly off at your command and gather whatever materials were needed to construct anything one might desire.
(My thought at the time was one's own nuclear arsenal)
So with these capabilities coming available how will we treat video evidence of a crime? Will there now be any reality worth relying on? Will we one day even be able to believe our own eyes? Is it possible that we have become too smart for our own good? Actually I guess we have already crossed that threshold some time ago without my noticing it. In the near future self doubt will have an even higher value than it has today.
The article discusses one type of technology but we’ve always had the problem regardless of technology. An accountant who keeps two sets of books, forged memos, letters, artifacts, etc., and it is up to people to try to distinguish real from fake. Pictures of the Loch Ness monster that were found to be fakes based on toys, the Orson Welles radio broadcast of the ‘War of the Worlds’, the various women claiming to be Anastasia, photos of the Cottingley Fairies, etc., and the many art forgeries and literary hoaxes. Narrowing the problem to one of politics doesn’t provide any solutions or make the problem any worse, what does is how gullible people are willing to be. Republicans appear to be just slightly more gullible than Democrats when it comes to believing fake news, and history shows that world renowned experts, scientists, and such can also be fooled, sometimes large numbers of them for extended periods if the hoax, forgery or faked item is well done. We need to be diligent, and to not accept something at face value just because it appeals to biases.
3
Repudiated by reality, President Trump appears to remain adverse to protecting our election systems. His election integrity commission ended up being a useless partisan effort that U.S.states quickly recognized.
There were nearly 150,000 attempts to penetrate South Carolina’s voter registration database on Election Day in 2016. That's one state!!
This well-sourced article with its hundreds of endnotes is a must for our legislators to consider:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2017/08/16/437...
The scariest thing is that there are no consequences for someone to literally hack or steal an election, as we have seen from Election 2016. What’s to stop a campaign from weaponizing these tactics, even going so far as to literally flip enough switches (say about 70,000 votes scattered among districts in three states), or where the votes are centrally tallied? The answer is nothing. We are told there is no process for “nullification” of an election, only “impeachment” which we now see is entirely a matter of who is in control of Congress (If collusion with a foreign adversary to steal a campaign is not impeachable, if self-dealing is not impeachable offense, if high crimes and misdemeanors against the nation are not impeachable, what is? Adultery?). And it doesn’t even cost much, maybe $500,000, a bargain compared to what the Kochs, Mercer, or Sheldon Adelson now spend. Someone might go to jail for election fraud, you say? Well, what if the campaign said, “We’ll pay you $1 million and you’ll only spend a few years in a white-collar prison.” The “Founders” were not omniscient. They never predicted anyone as grossly corrupt and incompetent as Trump, abetted by an equally corrupt Congressional majority party. The Electoral College was supposed to be the final brake on a popular vote run amok, but it didn’t function as intended when in December 2016, it was already known that the Russians tipped the balance for Trump, say about 70,000 votes scattered among districts in 3 states.
2
This is the most timely and though provoking articles I have read lately. I am not sure how we combat this when a large part of the populace is intentionally ignorant {don't need no stinkin facts, they just confuse you). These are perilous times for your country and every other democracy. Rest assured, what ever insanity infects your country will infect others.
I don't think the problem is technology. The problem is voters and the situation in the country making "low information" voters angry and gullible. The world is changing and politics is changing with it. Another problem is corruption of political establishment supporting unqualified candidates and anything goes campaigns with inflammatory rhetoric. Much more serious accusations than amateur porn were leveled against current president and some of his key officials and what happened? Crazy twits every day, family members in the administration, business and state interests mixed and a lot more. Did it make any difference? Porn may be an asset in current political climate, more or less so than indictment for fraud, remains to be seen. Blaming technology for political chaos is easy, reality is much more complex and harder to address. One of the underlying issues is that technology is a factor in job losses, changing nature of information and media and resulting social instability leading to some of the current problems. Fake video, in my view, is the least of our problems.
1
The essence of this problem is the paradox of the low information voter who is sophisticated enough to get the porn video of Kirsten Gillibrand on his smart phone but he is not smart or sophisticated enough to realize the limitations of that device and that technology.
We may all be low information voters or at least misinformed voters now and in the future and the importance of "reliable" sources where journalists fact check may become more important.
Personally, I read the NYT and the New Yorker and I tend to believe what I read there, but how much more analytical am I than the Trump acolyte who reads the opinion pages of the WSJ and watches Fox News?
8
In our current alternate universe, I guess anything can happen. We have Trump, who has been a proven sexual predator, a thief who robbed immigrants of their pay for his building construction, he cheated thousands of students out of millions of dollars at his for profit school, he lies on a regular basis. Now just what can the democrats fake that is worse than that? He still got elected with all of his dirty laundry. The republican party has no moral value any longer, sad... all in the name of tax cuts for the rich.
2
Time to reread the 1968 novel 'Stand on Zanzibar' by John Brunner. Prophetic!
FOX News should be banned since it is non-democratic and spreads conspiracy theories. Fox viewers live in an alternate science-fiction universe where facts don't matter. Why are we allowing fake news TV?
2
NO It's Not just fake videos and Russian Bots 'dumbing down' our Citizenry. Turn on a Radio. What passes for 'News' out in no-middle-class U.S.A. is toxic. Add. Cable TV barely covers more than one topic 24/7. Fare at CNN / MSNBC on Super Bowl Sunday; Multiple hours of Prison Shows. Meanwhile. Out in the 'REAL' World. Cape Town, South Africa will be completely 'OUT' of water' by mid April 2018. In Paris, The Seine floods the "City of Light" for a 2nd year in a row! These catastrophes have huge implications for the U.S yet they are barely covered aside from the disaster in Montecito, where much deadlier 'mudslides' are predicted to be 'inevitable' for 3 to 5 years. We're in deep trouble with no common ground in In sight. This is NO 'thanks' to ever escalating conglomeration in our media landscape which is bringing less and less 'real' news. Bots and fake videos may well continue to engage the dumbed down folks on the left and right in good part because our MSM landscape leaves such a gaping void.
1
When I read a newspaper story or see something online, especially including "reports" that favor my anti-conservative point of view, I always do some further research before buying into them. If they turn out to be left-wing propaganda I reject them. I doubt that very many on the other side do this. Right-wing propaganda is why Trump, and not Clinton, is president now. When so much of the media is shouting right-wing lies and what remains of the "mainstream" is bending over backwards to actually be "fair and balanced" then the lies, repeated non-stop, will eventually triumph. I don't know what the answer is because you can't fix stupid, incurious and gullible in the voting populace.
1
Every election from here on will be contentious and litigated and the result not believed by the population.
1
We have two choices. We could just accept that all video and audio evidence in the future, both political and non-political, is just as likely to be fabricated as real. This will allow anyone to dismiss any video they dislike as "fake news" while believing in any video they agree with. Post-truth gets even post-truthier.
The alternative is worse. We could get Google et al. to impose a rigorous firewall around what is known as "fake news", expanded to include everything the mainstream establishment disagrees with. We're already moving in that direction now.
Google has greatly de-ranked not only actual "fake news" sites, but also many socialist sites as well (Truthdig and Counterpunch have both been targeted, presumably Jacobin will be too). The same phenomenon has happened to other sites outside the mainstream as well, including libertarian and paleoconservative sites.
It seems to be that anywhere which ended up on a ludicrous list published anonymously from the new site "PropOrNot", about a month after the election, ended up getting deranked by Google a few months later. That list included everything from socialists to libertarians to anti-war sites to the far right to conspiracy theorists even wackier than Alex Jones.
The common denominator among all those sites is advocacy of dovish foreign policy on Russia. The masters of Cold War II have decided that anyone not in favor of antagonizing a heavily nuclear-armed near-superpower must be spreading "fake news".
Henry and Rick, agree with your concerns. I very much am concerned about the state of social media and it's influence in politics as well as personal lives. We recently had a young woman at GA Tech expelled because she said the n word on an 'anonymous' instagram account. Of course, nothing is really anonymous anymore. What struck me was that she was expelled. She didn't incite a riot, didn't abuse or harass anyone personally, just said the n word. She was expelled only because she was white, because in 2018 you can use the n word if you are black or brown, but not white. You can use violent language in a rap song and it's okay, but you cannot sing along to that song if you're white (according to a NYTimes article on what diversity directors tell the incoming students). So, we've already been hacked; our freedom has been hacked by our authorities - they decide what can and cannot be said or done. Much worse than our political future.
1
Fascinating. If technology for fake or altered video images goes mainstream, we'll probably have to drop police cameras and go back to eyewitness testimony.
I would contend that our state of affairs is already one in which citizens do not share the same reality. At what point does intentional spin and falsehood become seditious?
Not really. As quickly as technology enables fabricating an audio/visual forgery, technology enables detecting an audio/visual forgery. The same technology.
Grand Vision: Internet of Things. Because you want to talk to your toaster.
In no time: Stuxnet. We keep shooting ourselves.
And Stuxnet was not the product of "low information" people.
Referencing "low information" anything will not win you friends or votes.
Let's share responsibility. "Journalists" MUST "report" because people are talking about "it". Not only is the news fake, the crowds are too. Buzz is easier to manufacture than any image or soundbite.
It's "Wag the Dog'' gone viral.
1
Never miss an opportunity to scaremonger about Russia. It's amazing how the evil empire can be dropped into any article, allowing people to imagine all the horrors they may potentially be up to in the future.
This makes 1984 seem like 1904. Chico Marx summed it up: "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"
1
Thank you for bring this issue to a mass media outlet like the NYT.
The notion that hacking in the digital age represents a significantly new threat to separating information from disinformation aka fact from fiction represents an ignorance about history. Two of the greatest liars of all time succeeded in a pre-digital analog age.
Joseph Stalin knew that those who control the past make the future. During the height of his reign over the Soviet Union he would airbrush photos that included his enemies until no one but Stalin and Lenin were present at key moments in Soviet history. Finally ending up with Stalin standing alone against his World War II invasion of Poland ally Adolf Hitler after Nazi Germany turned on the Soviet Union leaving 27.5 million dead Soviet citizens.
Adolf Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels was the master of partisan political nation state manipulative malfeasance. Manufacturing enemies and heroes is an entertaining useful distraction.
Hacking is not the problem. Ignorance and gullibility are the root causes of inhumanity. The inability of most human beings to think originally, independently and creatively is an enduring historical dilemma.
1
Its obvious that the fact that our Left and the NY Times and major media are now not benefitted by whatever propaganda Russia does is the real reason for their mounting neurotic calls for more and more media and IT censorship. So ... what happened to the traditional assurances offered by our self-imagined to be superior and wiser than the 99% media, and our Left/"liberal" political class assurances during the Cold War (when anti Vietnam marches and press were being funded by Russia and the WARSAW pact, China) that well 'a vibrant free press' able to investigate print the truth AND the opportunity for everyone, even those guilty of treason, to express their views will cause truth and justice to be victorious in the end. Doesn't the obvious ability mentioned at the beginning of this article to determine that created videos suggesting a crime by a politician are fake enable the same proof that a person is innocent, and so prove their innocence like in formal courtroom settings. Doesn't the continuing history of false accusations that everyday are proved to be false logically prove that we don't need some PC, left wing media elite editing and censoring the print, TV and all manner of social medias? And again strange that the same conspiracy of contempt for common citizen elites don't mind that many, if not now most of the copycat MeToo accusations against men tried, and reputations destroyed, in the media are probably also false.
Bottom-feeding O'Keefe has done plenty of harm. Anyone who thinks people don't believe his material hasn't been paying attention. How do we go about making lying less successful? Trump sure ain't helping, is he?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/has-james-okeefe-accidentally-s... [August 8, 2017}
and this: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-...
If you think Acorn cheated in its voter registration campaigns, or Planned Parenthood sold body parts, you owe that in large part to Mr. O'Keefe.
Why shouldn't he go on trying when so many people are eager to believe him and our liar in chief? Breitbart and their crew of accusers are perfectly willing to manufacture evidence when they don't like what they find.
Honestly is all very fine and large, but it's losing to conspiracy ideation. Just look at all the self-labeled progressives who are busy claiming all kinds of mythologies about their natural allies, Democrats in office.
It's much easier to eat your own than get rid of the real criminals, who don't have consciences or hesitation.
2
Simply put: lies are easy. The truth is complex and difficult.
Hate is easy. Caring for others can be complex and difficult.
We need to reach for the best, not the worst, in ourselves. The repressive majority in government is now making this much much worse. Next stop: criminalizing Democrats and purges. After all, other dictators Bannon and Trump admire do it, why not here in the US?
3
Well, we are the only ones who can save ourselves from poisonous mind-feed. Don't imbibe. Turn off TV, radio and computer info. Raise children to think. Change the way we live so that we are not tech-dependent. Return to a simpler way of life. Care for those around us. Care for the earth. Live the prescriptions from the giants who came before us: Buddha, Confucius, Rumi, Mohammed, Abraham, Jesus, Martin. Find safety in wisdom.
3
I agree with Cheryl.
Democracy only works with a well informed, open minded public. Americans are certainly far from informed as millions of our dimwitted citizens bought Trump's snake oil and still do. Aside from the Russian threat, FOX news is the other orgs on the scene. They are not news , they are propaganda . They should be closed down, arrested and bankrupted into a long trial on every lie they have spread. Who told it, who wrote, who authorized it.
5
And if people think it won't work, remember, it already has...
Birth of a Nation. 1915.
"History written with lightning" according to the racist Woodrow Wilson.
Disgusting and scary then as now.
3
'"History written with lightning" according to the racist Woodrow Wilson.'
Wilson never said that. You have succumbed to an "informational virus".
See "D.W. Griffith's the Birth of a Nation: A History of the Most Controversial Motion Picture of All Time" by Melvyn Stokes.
No sophisticated fakery is needed to play a third of Americans. We have a bad liar and faker in chief who is not even that good at lying and yet look at the number of followers he has.
So the goal of sophisticated fakery is to fool another third of the population so that gerrymander and voter suppression is no longer needed to win. The smartest third will not matter so technology does not have to improve to the extent needed to fool them.
Thank you for pointing out that interviewing truthful and lying interviewees and talking heads is not "balance" - it just creates confusion. Proven liars should be discredited from being on camera again - and the liars are fairly easy to single out these days.
3
Old fashioned voting machines have their place.
4
No, NYT, perhaps what we should really be discussing here is how the term "hacking" has been re-defined since 2016 to refer to any type of interference.
Shortly after the election, this outlet and other news sources started to spread the falsehood not that Russia had spread misinformation, or even actual information (like DNC emails demonstrating what everyone already knew about Hillary) but that Russia had "hacked the election."
So that we are clear: There was no hacking of voting machines, which is the crime that many Americans were led to believe had taken place because of the wording chosen by the NYT, WaPo, CNN and other news organizations. It's quite rich when you manipulate the public to believe your falsehoods, all under the guise of being credible news organizations, while pointing fingers at obviously fake news stories that were circulated by Russian sources, mostly after the election, and mostly to little effect.
3
I’ve asked many of my friends on the left to explain how voting machines that are not networked got hacked and I’ve never heard anything but “you’re listening to the wrong news” if you don’t believe that the Russians hacked our voting systems. Later on the phrases were changed to with “The Russians hacked our system” meaning the voting and not the machines themselves. I come from the technology sector and my understanding of computer related issues is probably better than most people. I don’t see how anyone can hack into a system that has no open ports. All this while other viable questions are still unanswered leads me to believe that leftists don’t care about the truth just pointing the finger at someone else. I simply don’t discuss politics anymore with them. I only smile at them when they start their rant.
Middleman MD, we really don't know if any machines were hacked or if voter roles were manipulated. The most accurate voter polls were wrong in only a few places. When the U.S. monitors elections in other countries, they partially rely on the same kinds of polls to tell if the election was fairly run. We should remain skeptical.
Great, so what do we do about it? It's hard to believe that the author has no ideas.
2
It will be up to respectable media outlets, including The NY Times, to not publish fake news stores or devote page 10 to the Russian driven stories of the day. This will be an issue for 2020 when the Russians once again try to help out Donald and emails and calls just “appear” in Wiki or other websites.
1
"Didn’t she [Gillibrand] have something to do with pornography?”"
The authors are out of touch.
Trump has already shown that alleged sexual misconduct is not an impediment to election.
And Gillibrand can be charged with hypocrisy and expediency for her early work defending a tobacco company.
2018-02-05 15:36:29 UTC
1
As a middle school teacher, my immediate worry is the ways that this can be used to cyberbully, shame and create revenge porn. Teenagers are not better at technology than adults, but they have the combination of too much time and not nearly enough common sense. The potential for damage is enormous.
Does anyone wonder how things might be different if you could browse anonymously but had to put an ID on things that you posted on the internet?
3
While new technology may increase malevolent actors’ ability to hack elections, if you can’t stop making stupid human mistakes like hiring a Pakistani IT team, giving them the keys to the IT kingdom and then being oblivious as they sell off everything they take. And they take everything.
Complaining about racism when they are caught fleeing the country doesn’t quite ameliorate the damage.
It’s the simple things that get you.
3
The worst implication here: corrupt politicians caught on camera or voice tape will have some level of plausible deniability. "That wasn't me in that video or tape you saw with your own eyes! They can doctor that completely now! Fake news!" .. and their base, led by the nose, will fall in line until we're through the next election.
3
It is scary to think how easily people can be manipulated through uncredited sources such as social media. Don't people read the newspaper anymore?
2
The Times running a supposedly independent opinion piece worrying about fake videos reminds me of the bumper sticker: “Don’t steal, the government hates competition.”
2
Fake video and audio may become so convincing that it can’t be distinguished from real recordings?
Society should probably head off the negative political/economic/cultural implications of this problem by starting directly at the bottom, with pornography, and turning such as much as possible into therapeutic sex education.
By this I mean people have long remarked on the close association between music, dancing, images and sex. Well, become more directly scientific. Obviously two virgins meeting are plagued about "what each should do" when it comes to sex. We can have instructional videos, with perhaps celebrity faces superimposed on sex expert's bodies, demonstrating first that two people should select a song to play, then each should agree to follow exactly the rhythm of the song, that way each "knows the course", knows the rhythm and when crescendos arrive, and they can sync to each other more accurately.
As they become more sophisticated they can learn to move through a variety of songs and finally each can teach the other own "songs of love", personal ways of moving and loving that are satisfactory. In a society with finally accurate and honest and satisfactory sex education, people will probably be less mean spirited which will cut down on negative use of this type of advanced technology.
Integrate this technology with the arts and most basic human impulses to have an honest and secure social foundation, then use this technology to drive advanced education in life.
Destroying truth and facts has always been easy. And DJTrump has totally figured it out. Example: the memo. Just get something out there you can pin your claims to, and your own phrases are broadcast repeatedly. It’s the same principle as the Pink Elephant: Don’t think of one.
The intractable problem that Democracy has always faced is the “low-information voter.” The 60% of possible voters who don’t are no-information non-voters. I suppose we should be grateful they stay away from the polls. But it’s the little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing people who do show up at the polls, in hordes, that we should be very afraid of. They are known to be charmed by charismatic candidates who also happen to be good public servants. But they can also be charmed by crackpots.
The ancient Greeks, who invented Democracy, limited it severely, noting that the common person was a liability. We should have listened to them. The U.S. has made more mistakes than it has made correct choices. All the political mistakes have been made at the hands of the “low-information voter.”
3
I wouldn't put it past O'Keefe to try such a stunt. His phony video against ACORN worked, but his later escapades against Shirley Sherrod, Sen. Mary Landrieu, and the CNN reporter backfired seriously.
It was inappropriate to use Senator Gillibrand as an example of something so tawdry even in a “What if?” postulation.
3
If the filmmaker is willing to falsify his/her work and put another person's face on someone else's body or substitute the words spoken -- how about we PROSECUTE them for character assassination, slander and/or fraud? The FBI needs to shut these people down. And also VERIFY the news so the junk you see on the Internet is not covered by legitimate newspapers like the NYT. The FCC should also take broadcasting licenses away from news organizations that spread fake news.
4
Our Haclebee political future is preparing us for the salacious bits of the famous Trump dossier? is that next?
1
Even without video that's what they managed to do with Hillary Clinton. When a voter in Wisconsin can say "wasn't she wrapped up in some child sex ring?" And people on my Facebook feed can claim, without facts and against all logic, that she murders people and swears like a sailor just because they heard it, well, it's nothing new. It took a deep root with HRC being watered by misogyny and decades of smear efforts, but it's been with us since the founding. Wasn't it Adams someone called a hermaphroditic so and so? And you can find similar in Rome. The only cure is for people to get smarter, to read and pay attention, to train their brains to use logic and reason and to encourage others to do so. Counter bizarre claims, offer real facts and don't just rely on the lazy insult lobbed.
28
May 11, 2012, article in this paper entitled “Romney’s Adversarial View of Russia Stirs Debate.” The first paragraph reads:
“WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney’s recent declaration that Russia is America’s top geopolitical adversary drew raised eyebrows and worse from many Democrats, some Republicans and the Russians themselves, all of whom suggested that Mr. Romney was misguidedly stuck in a cold war mind-set.”
The use of the internet and hacking is a difference only in means, not in inclination. In fact, it corroborates Mr. Romney’s suspicions. But at that time, in 2012, the Democrats and progressives mocked him ridiculed him and made fun of him as a man stuck in the past. Its hard to imagine, given their obsession with Russian intrigue how. Were they smarter then than now? Do you really want to know why conservatives are so cynical about liberals? Its because we actually listen to them, read their papers (like this one), consider their arguments, and notice in amazement how they abandon them completely and argue the opposite when it suits them. I have read this newspaper for 20 years. It has become a model of partisan incoherence. Fox News could not top it on its best day when it comes to folly.
1
Did Romney presciently cite cyber-crime as his explanation for why Russia should be considered America's biggest adversary?
1
True! Romney was right about Russia and Democrats, like myself, were wrong! In 2012 I had no idea that Putin was so radically different from his most recent predecessors and most liberals wanted Obama to win the debate with Romney as we were skeptical about an arms race. However, your stating that the NYT "could not top" FOX "when it comes to folly" is patently and provably false. Take it from a Liberal who believes it's my'patriotic' duty to monitor Fox News to learn about our divisions. I wish folks, like you, would occasional, turn to a 'Republican,' like Nicole Wallace, on MSNBC, to broaden your outlook. God knows we need Republicans to meet Democrats 1/2 way if we are ever going to unify our tragically un-unified Country.
1
In the DT epoc: Children are learning that lies are the truth and the truth is a lie.
In the DT epoc: The truth and nothing but the truth has gone? The propaganda is so perfect and soft and followed with a body language that a prophet would never have done it better.
In DT epoc:
What happened to the plight of defending the constitution?
How can we believe the promises any more coming from the highest office
All of us, we deserve better .. .
1
“Outlets like Fox News spread stories about [the murder of Democratic staff members] and F.B.I. conspiracies to frame the president.”
(1) The newly released MEMO by Congress proves that there was an FBI conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 American Election and prevent the election of Donald Trump. It also shows collusion between the FBI, DOJ and DNC to interfere with electoral process in the USA. That is a constitutional crisis just under your nose.
(2) The US Courts have heard the evidence that the DNC hacked the electoral Primaries to prevent Sanders becoming the nominee of the Democratic Party
(3) You do not need to reference Fox News for these facts. The USA is in the middle of a major constitutional crisis and the Corporate media are in a state of Panic trying to hide it!
4
Robert Jennings: Don't drink the Kool-Aid. It's laughable that Trump, FOX "News" and Republicans claim that the FBI conspired to prevent the election of Trump. Don't forget Comey was their darling when he publicly revisited the Clinton's email scandal weeks before the election, even though there was nothing new there. All we heard was about Clinton emails, all day, every day, but NO mention of the Trump/Russia investigation before the election. The FBI helped Trump win the election, if anything!
2
Who would have thought, a marvel of technological prowess, the Internet, a balm of progress for human rights, freedom and peace in society if used well...or an abusive, disgrace when the vast information out there is used maliciously, to destroy our noblest values 'a la Trump'. What an awful dystopia to contemplate. We must wake up, educate ourselves in the facts that conform reality, and the beauty of truth...and defend it!
1
I just listened to a morning news anchor on our local Fox channel ("Fox10") describe the Nunez Memo as asserting that the Russia investigation began with the Steele dossier.
Evidently he hasn't read the memo. Or maybe he didn't read the real memo, he read some other thing. Or maybe he was lying to maintain his tribal credentials. Or maybe I did not see what I saw.
These are issues of character, not technology. Lemmings, with no technology at all, charge over the cliff with gusto.
2
Yes, this is deeply troubling, because the concept of shared reality is already crumbling in this country.
On the right, Fox News promotes conspiracy theories about the Democrats, and the gullible viewers swallow them like gumdrops.
On the left, a legion of postmodern pseudo-intellectuals push relativist interpretation of reality to the limits and suggest that reality itself is only a social construct. At that point, my "reality" has no need to conform to your "reality", and whatever I feel is true becomes my "truth". If my "truth" is that you are a bigot or a monster, then in my "reality" you are that, and no logical argument or discussion is allowed.
Between fake news, fake video, social media, and identity politics on the right and the left, there is not much room left for community. And without community, there is not much room for democracy.
I already knew that civilization was headed for another Dark Age -- I just didn't expect it to arrive so soon. And the irony that it is being led in by advanced technology is not lost on me.
1
One big way to counteract this is publicly funded elections. Candidates can only use public funds, no other and elections are for various lengths depending on the office. 4 months for representatives, 6 months for senate a year for the president. All non-incumbents get extra time, one month reps, two months senate races, 3 months for presidents.
Outside unaffiliated groups have to be restricted to the same time frame. It won't eliminate fake coverage in whatever form, but at least it is limited to a time frame. Facebook, twitter, etc. can not take commercial or political groups (unions, pro-candidate pacs, etc) ads or posts unless in the time frame.
Social media platforms should be required to vet political posts to ensure adherence to time frame or fines of like $250,000 per post and if that post is forwarded another $250,000.
How about all news organizations, newspapers, etc. have to vet all video before playing. All those who don't (thinking InfoWars) have to by law label at the bottom of all non-vetted video: Entertainment Video, Not News Video in block letters larger than the typical chyron.
I am sure there is tweaking, but you can't claim restricting free press if everyone is in the same boat.
We should be able to figure out how to combat this dangerous propaganda.
Tech is ever more dangerous if only weakly regulated by elected govts. Our political norms have been manipulated by rw credo of ‘small govt’. That translates to small protections for citizens, but big protection for corporate money.
Fox News uses fantasy to spread lies, dominating media across the land. Trace back what enabled it to grow into this huge monopoly, with rw cult stars, as the GOP state-run megaphone.
1st Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine for news. Then Bill Clinton & GOP repealed anti monopoly laws that had prevented media companies buying up a lot of newspapers, TV, radio in a market. Protections dismantled.
Turning over our elections to the dark money super rich efficiently removes citizen majority influence on congress and renders public spirited politicians weak. Campaign finance reform is crucial to restore citizen control in the public interest.
In Davos, billionaire George Soros warned of ‘far-reaching adverse consequences’ of social media power on democracy” ….it’s “particularly nefarious as social media companies influence how people think and behave without them even being aware of it…”
We see mutating political viruses spread, weakening the immune system of the body politic, making it vulnerable to invasion by exploiters. No profit in finding an antidote to this virus. If steps aren’t taken by govt we may see the downfall of democracy---WITH the manipulated ‘consent of the governed.’ Sure, no coup necessary.
1
Any time new technology is made available to the general public it becomes corrupted. Remember the CB radios? They were useful until the crazies got control with their vulgar rants.
1
Blockchain to the rescue. The authenticity of the video is verified by subject's validation.
For undercover video, this may be more difficult.
You can see where this liberal argument is going. "Low Information voters" (derogatory racist term to refer to non-liberal whites) being led astray by conservative outlets equals a need for government regulation and censorsip of the conservative media.
Ever since Fox news broke the stranglehold of the big 3 networks and Rush connected with millions daily it has been a liberal dream to wipe them out. The issue of technology is yet another front in this assault on the First Amendment .
1
Democrats Obama and H. Clinton were only too willing to subvert the Justice Department and the FBI to create the Trump/Russia illusion, just think what the "progressives" could do with this technology.
People will just learn not to believe their own lying eyes. We're already there, in fact.
1
Yes, now we know what a post-apocalyptic landscape really looks like. It is not on the earth, it is in the minds of people overwhelmed by manipulated images of evil and depravity.
1
Just imagine if the MSM had not spent the past 40 years being so biased and partisan. Perhaps, then the majority of Americans would trust the MSM about warnings. However, when you have the relentless support of one political party (and that party has been shown to be corrupt i.e. Bernie Sanders rigging) the majority of Americans will give very little weight to such warnings. Just this past week you had false allegations about what would happen to National Security if the Memo was released. No sources given up. MSM lied or misled us again. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Mark Felt (Deep Throat's) advice remains true: "Follow the money."
Develop critical thinking in education. There are too many stupid, highly educated people whom educators failed. Intelligence is not what you know but how you gathered it. Some day, your ability to learn will be impaired by old age. But, if you develop critical thinking and sharpen those skills then old age is not an impediment.
1
If the first fake is of a GOP candidate, they'll call for the end of freedom of the press.
For a great and current example of this technology, watch "I, Tonya." You simply cannot tell that it is really Margot Robbie's face (as Tonya Harding) mapped onto a real skater's body.
Unfortunately, as the blue/red divide becomes ever more tribal, the authenticity of fake videos and the like will matter less and less – shady operatives like O'Keefe need only to plant the seed that unscrupulous politicians like our President can refer to when campaigning.
It's for this reason that now, more than ever, legitimate news sources like the NY TIMES must somehow find a way to resist the urge to present both sides as equally worthy of our consideration. All the parties involved know that's no longer the case and we risk our democratic principles by pretending it's so.
It might seem that this article states the obvious. Nevertheless, it is a great article.
"Traditional news organizations, fearing that they might be left behind in the new attention economy, struggle to maximize “engagement with content.”"
The main reason why traditional news organization such as the Times should indeed "maximize engagement with content" isn't just to not be left behind in the new attention economy.
The main reason why it's absolutely crucial for the survival of democracy (and, once that's secured, its thriving, but we're no longer there yet today) that this kind of maximization becomes traditional media's first and foremost priority, is because there IS a way to fight back against fake news, and that's called fact-checking.
Of course, fact-checking is what those media already do, but that's no longer enough. That's just opposing one kind of "news" to another one called "fake". You will only convince those who are already convinced, if you limit the scope of your fight against fake news to simply stating/proving in articles that it is fake news.
Democracy, fortunately, has another weapon in its arsenal to prevent a small minority from hacking its institutions, as is happening today, and that's real, respectful debates AMONG ordinary citizens.
An op-ed written by Krugman may be entirely correct, but the only way to convince "anti-Krugman" NYT readers of the fact that what he writes is true, is to be able to have real time debates with those readers.
And that means substituting a mere comment section for a true discussion forum ... !!
This is an extremely scary scenario, and it is even more plausible because effectively it has already happened, even without the fancy video fakery. This was the process that turned Hillary Clinton from the most admired woman in America into the Devil incarnate in the eyes of perhaps 30 percent of the electorate, and made Donald Trump our President. The media were to an alarming degree complicit in this demonization by misinformation.
34
Your last sentence should have been in all caps. It should be a warning on the mast head of every paper and every newscast, It is not that we shouldn't trust the media , it is that everything they say or print needs to be verified.
1
The GOP has lost all credibility by demonstrating primary loyalty to Trump, himself a possible felon. All GOP candidates nationwide should be boycotted in order to redirect the party of Lincoln. Vote for opposing candidates in much the same manner as Trump advised voting to drain the swamp; in this case the Republican swamp.
There is a great danger from misinformation -- so many Americans believe false facts and, as a result, have no understanding that their own actions contribute to a system which destroys their own social fabric and well being.
And the result is that much of America is blindly setting itself on a downward spiral.
You think the public schools are failing ? Then you refuse to see public schools will not get better if you vote against taxes needed to support those schools ..
You deplore the wasting of our main streets? Then you ignore that is a direct result of your own decision to shop at Walmart or other big box stores ... and abandon patronizing businesses owned by your own neighbors ...
You think "your people" are not getting their slice of the economic pie ... but don't look at actual economic data.
There are a legion of examples. And what is portrayed by a large segment of our national media isn't far from what is described in this opinion piece ...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/donald-trump-2016-election-...
21
While this wasn't the central point of Michael Crichton's 1992 novel "Rising Sun", it played a vital role in the story.
Crichton's commentary (via the characters in the book) on the evidentiary value of captured images in the long term is made almost in passing, but is no less disturbing for that.
This kind of disinformation is only possible because our system of government is fundamentally flawed. 2,300 years ago, Aristotle already understood that democratic government is suited only for tiny, city-scale polities: small enough that every citizen has some level of personal acquaintance with every other, and can therefore make firsthand judgements about their character and fitness for office.
Installing a centralized democratic government over a territory of almost 4,000,000 square miles and 300,000,000+ citizens is just asking for trouble.
This is all perfectly terrifying but I'm not sure technology changes the underlying dynamic much. There are some people who want to be convinced. There are other people happy to supply the required conviction. This has been true throughout almost all history. The mechanisms of manipulation matter little in the long run.
However, there are still educated members of society that actively seek to appropriately source the information they consumer. Personally, I'll evaluate a story from the New York Times more highly than a random link on Facebook. The important point though: Both sources are taken in context, evaluated for bias, and taken or dismissed as the case may be.
Not everyone is as self-aware and almost no one is so self-aware consistently. However, the lesson is basically an argument for emphasizing critical thinking in education. How can an individual determine whether a source is honest and factual? If you accept this goal as indeterminable then you've entered Trump's alternate reality where everything is fake.
I happen to disagree with Trump's reality. Last I checked, gravity still exists. Everything after that is a matter of degree and interpretation. Some things are more true than others but that doesn't make everything fake.
It's almost impossible for reasonable, honest people to tell the difference between the real and the fake, with the assistance of technology. The rest don't care. They want to hear what they already believe,
We've had Photoshop for over two decades, and it can be used to alter still photographs. I'm rather proud of some of the deceptive examples that I've created. Of course, my work had no political purpose; it was just used to remove clothing stains and facial lines.
Do we not have an array of experts who can tell whether photos have been doctored for purposes of fraud or legal deception? Can these experts up their game to work with video?
So, eventually, we will be on our guard to suspend belief in anything and in everyone? Mistrust and suspicion will rule the day. Those who try to blurt out the truth can be dismissed as fake, and those who are fake can be heralded as real. Truth will be claimed as lies and lies will be claimed as truth. In fact, this new reality is already here and its most ardent practitioner currently holds the Oval Office.
1
The “low information” voter.
He/she is rapidly becoming the straw man of the Democrats, who argue that people vote Republican because they have very few inquisitive skills.
Maybe – but the real villain is the high information voter. Take for example, John Kelly, who must be phenomenally intelligent and possess all the information one could ask for in order to have been a US Marine Corp General.
Yet when I listen to him shilling for Trump and his policies and attacking the family and friends of recently bereaved US soldier, Sgt. La David Johnson, - who may even have been executed - I’m left wondering what the uplift from “low information” to “super-high information” has got me.
2
Even a reading of the facts most favorable to the Democratic Party and to Hillary Clinton, a dossier of questionable validity funded as "opposition research" managed to become a central element of the 2016 campaign and the still-roiling legal aftermath of the opening of an FBI investigation in the political campaign and transitional committee of the election's winner.
The winners of this bizarre situation are those that enjoy and benefit from the political chaos, and the losers are The People and our republican form of government.
I am highly supportive of the release of any and all information regarding the FBI investigation into the Trump/Russia matter subject only to the redaction of classified information or the protection of express, detailed executive privilege.
Let The People decide.
I would also hope that people who have the power to start and carry out such investigations in the future think very, very carefully as to whether such investigations are not more of a political nature than on criminal activities, with the benefit of the doubt always suggesting that political investigations MUST not be allowed to get going.
And my recommendation to Special Prosecutor Mueller: Resolve your investigation with all deliberate speed. Don't continue to search for that which isn't there. Recognize the political nature of this whole thing, and give the accused all benefits of the doubt consistent with the reasonable and customary application of our laws.
And now that the virtues of loyalty and tribalism have trumped the virtues of truth and objectivity, we could be in for a rough ride.
2
One step that needs to be considered, with great care toward not damaging free speech, would be to make it illegal for someone to use another person's face without specific permission. The legal principle that we all own our faces and no one can take them from us would need to be established and, in fact, the need exists right now.
It must be horrid these days to be a female movie star, especially if you have children. Anyone can go on the internet and see photos of sex acts with the movie star's face pasted on the image. At present, there is virtually nothing anyone can do about the appropriation of identity, theft, that occurs. The process of addressing this problem should begin at once.
It is widely recognized the free speech is not unlimited. At the point where it causes, or might cause, intentional harm to others in an obvious way, it stops (inciting to riot, for example). We must begin to creatively address the issue of the privacy of even public persons; there must be some kind of limits.
This is an important issue to me in part because I predicted this kind of ability to manipulate imagery more than 25 years ago (I was working as a television reporter/manager at that time). Almost anything you can imagine can be created because the digital nature of the images allows almost unlimited intervention. The writers of this op-ed are entirely correct to sound the alarm.
2
Trump has led Republicans down a path of moral corruption that is going to be very hard to change - Republicans have adopted the trump doctrine of lie, deny, exaggerate, deceive and cheat - They sold their soles for control, and they are not about to give that up.
2
As Congress flounders around with the Russian investigation why don't we hear what the CIA is doing about preventing further fake news in our elections? The Russians are masterminds in the trade.
1
Your use of the term "low information voter" strikes at the heart of the matter. They are LOW information because they eat a diet of only what is put in front of them. There is no search for alternative sources, no questioning of the " facts". And although they are consumers of technology and information, they see no value in how technology works and how it impacts them.
One of the warnings I had to repeat to my parents was that all you see on the internet is not real. It took awhile to drive that home. Technology will continue to evolve and challenge us. Video editing used to be the domain of specialists, now it is available to you and me, and we can CREATE some amazing things with an app or two. Even more amazing with dedicated video editing software. We need to understand that there are tools in the background capable of fabricating just about anything.
2
I imagine there may come a time when we will be digging through landfills to find the books we threw away in the 90s, because everything stored and networked digitally can be hacked and altered given sufficient tech and AI. History altered, uncomfortable facts replaced, knowledge deleted. An Information age, followed by a No-Reliable-Information age. We will need to copy the data we wish to preserve for the future and make hard copies for posterity, or history as we understand it is about change. Red pill or blue pill?
3
Digital watermarking might be a partial solution. Something akin to the unique IDs Apple Pay generates between a bank and a customer during a payment. All companies that produce content could have their content authenticated this way and your digital device could check for it in the background when you load a video. No watermark? An icon in your OS or browser pops up conspicuously to notify you.
As for non-professionally-produced content that leaks something revealing? The future looks concerning, to say the least. I am constantly amazed at how gullible people are.
1
I remember watching Rising Sun with Wesley Snipes and Sean Connery, a 1993 film, that worried about video editing in much the same light.
Laughable with today's technology.
I think we have entered a fatal feedback loop. Those with no compunction or morals are THEN likely to possess greedy self-interest that THEN lobbies our "representative Congress" for laws that THEN allow them to make even more money so they can THEN utilize ever more sophisticated nefarious schemes to THEN misinform voters who THEN elect ever more nefarious representatives who THEN help the greedy get more greedy still.
And TODAY, we have Trump polls going up, and chances for a blue wave going down, and the Koch brother promising to buy the election results at $400,000,000.00. Is it too late to save our *Representative Democracy"??
1
Several of the comments mention the need for a democracy to educate citizens to be critical thinkers. That is the opposite of what the GOP wants. I have long believed part of their motivation for destroying public education is to insure that the general population remains ignorant and easily fooled. It’s working. Great essay Rick. -Roberta
2
Photoshop has long been capable of producing convincing fakes. If a news organization shares a video, or writes about it, without questioning its authenticity when it defames someone's character, the victim of the hoax can take that organization to court.
The problem is not the technology, it's that many Americans are extremely gullible, and can't tell a news source from a cartoon.
19
What is coming?
Climate change deniers will argue that the videos showing proof of the effects of climate change on coral reefs, Arctic ice, and islands in the Pacific are digital frauds. Or worse, they will produce their own fraudulent videos showing that there is no damage to coral reefs, Arctic ice, and islands in the Pacific.
Defenders of police accused of unnecessary violence will argue that the body camera videos showing proof of police violence are digital frauds. Or worse, the chain of custody of the digital camera videos will be hacked and someone will produce fraudulent videos showing that there is no unnecessary police violence.
Terrorists and authoritarian governments will argue that videos showing their atrocities are digital frauds. Or worse, terrorists and authoritarian governments will create digital frauds that show their opponents engaged in atrocities.
I could go on and on, but that is sufficient. Civilization and the world is in danger.
4
Perhaps it is time for Congress to come up with a Congressional Technology Office similar to the Congressional Budget Office. Such an organization would examine current technology and project how that technology could be used to benefit or harm society, then brief Congress on alarming items like this one.
Forecasting is what sensible organizations do. It's not enough to give projections of future money flows; we need projections on technology to see how it can affect our wider society.
6
Maybe one consequence as people become aware of this type or trickery is that they will take in information with greater care, judgment and discernment.
Or, far more likely, at least we'll be able to create videos which make it seem like they do.
8
In the Soviet Union it was not unusual for "disgraced" former leaders to be removed from the historical photos. Same impulse.
14
I think without impairing the 1st amendment we can help citizens differentiate sources. I am disturbed when very well educated friends puppet Fox “News” conspiracy theories. The methods of other professions need to be applied to journalism, namely licensing, ethics standards and the ability to loose the license for violations. Similarly, the News Industry should be regulated like other industries with certain words (like News, Journalism, etc..) can only be used or requiring certain credentials like the “NA” for banks, to indicate standing. Rules to separate opinion or inference would require clear separation. Then, the libel laws for non-News publication could be reviewed for larger consequences and a liability not only to the injured party but also to those who view the false material. Finally, all online publication would need to be traceable to a responsible party, either an individual or an entity. In either case, requiring the use of KYC type info to publish (just like opening a checking account) would create a system of accountability and transparency
28
Thank you for these excellent suggestions, Cheryl. I think we all need to step back, take a deep breath, and re-dedicate ourselves to uncovering the truth, even if it hurts! In the long run, that will serve democracy and freedom the best, and that will serve all of us.
3
Helpful technical suggestions, which while workable, can be limited in outcomes given that a culture enabling not taking responsibility for one's words and deeds has become anchored and institutionalized.Both by influential individual and systemic stakeholders with their agendas, as well as by ordinary folk, daily, coping, adapting, functioning as best as one can, as toxic complacency, willful blindness, deafness, silence and ignorance increasingly "infect."
Actually the remedies you propose in particular all online publication traceable lead to where China is arriving, a surveillance state, controlling the internet, tracking everyone everywhere and using the data to control populations by intimidation.
The ideas expressed in this piece are closer to Doomsday than I can be comfortable with. It's kind of like knowing that we're all going to die someday
no matter what we do.
8
About 80% of what we heard about Hillary Clinton in 2016 was made up or grossly exaggerated.
About the same amount of information about Trump was true.
1
The biggest threat facing us is not Donald Trump or global warming or even likelier nuclear war, it's the ever deeper integration of the Internet and AI into human life. The Singularity cometh.
11
When democracy dies in white noise as certainly as it "dies in darkness," we are in for a bumpy ride indeed.
9
Farrell and Pearlstein:
I hate to say this, but this is old news. Clifford Stoll warned of these possibilities and tried to get the West-especially the USA ,to wake up to the possibilities of such extra national take overs and interference. He wrote the story- the factual story of the first unravelling and arrest of a Communist East German computer hacker, working for the KGB and other Soviets, back in the late 1980's before the collapse of the USSR . Our undefended and open DARPAnet-before the creation of the WWW and public commercial internet, was open to anyone with a computer, phone plug and basic computer skills in FORTRAN.(a favorite computer language-originally US written-of Soviet agents). Stoll was ignored, and nothing he warned about made a dent or seemed to be understood in the West, though. Stoll is all but unknown by computer run business now. But he warned of today's eventualities over 30 years ago: we ignored it. I suggest the writers go and read "The Cuckoo's Egg" and consider whather America might not be better off-safer-going back to electromechanical voting and to an anti Russian/ Red CHinese mentality. When the West feared either Germany or Communism, we were far more muscular and always ready and willing to cooperate in defending ourselves-unlike today, when half America sits in Mr. Putin's lap, even as he sews strings on their arms and legs, and sews their eyes shut; wiring Russian propaganda directly to their brains.
21
Clifford Stoll is a genius. His book 'Silicon Snake Oil' is also worth dusting off.
It's about the negative consequences of computers upon children, especially within the classroom. He saw it coming long before anyone was really awake to the downsides of computers in our lives.
3
Monday 5 7am EST I have learned that fake video/audio is now real news. This strikes me as a thunderous blow to democracy. What can be done to upright such an affront to a decent world with such indecent technology. My constant theme is that democracy can only flourish if professional journalists are allowed to carry out their work without impedance. They are needed as much as the judiciary to keep government honest. But now what?
My only answer is to give journalists a license, same as a doctor or lawyer, and with such a title the reader or viewer can assure herself/himself that what he/she is hearing or reading is the truth. If the journalist is using fake news then he looses his license. This state of affairs will need artificial intelligence (AI) controlled by a third party to ascertain that the news is true or fake. The third party here will have to be trusted that the AI is not hacked while still being available to journalists to ascertain what they are planning to transmit to the public is the truth. Is trusting a third party taking one step forward and two back because some people think that truth is good but happiness is a lot better.
5
Surely you cannot be completely unaware of the role that so called Medical Professionals have played in the Opioid crisis in the USA? Right now Facebook and Google are censoring information at the request/direction of the Government of the USA.
2
A caveat to consider: " professional journalist" is a misleading description explaining nothing about the behavior, levels and qualities of relevant information, knowledge and understanding, information gathering and analytic tools, and experience, that s/he has. Nor about the person's ideological positions, ethics, norms, values, etc., all of which can be relevant to the final voiced, written, seen "product" in the range of current media.Doctors worked in concentration camps. Psychologists created torture programs. It's time to learn, and integrate, into our daily living that identity - self determined as well as ones created and labeled by others- and what a person does, or doesn't do, aren't always known, or even knowable, when reality's ever present dimensions are uncertainty, unpredictability, randomness, and lack of total control, no matter what we do. Or even how often.Lots of words which a salaried professional journalist might cut.Change.Or, perhaps, an editor would/should!
1
Media outlets that actually care about America will refuse to air fake news and the people who spread it. They won't rebut, because that's counter-productive. They will just leave it on the cutting-room floor.
THAT will make America Great Again.
10
But add money to the mix, Bert, a media outlet fighting to survive will sell its soul to survive. We have to get money out of politics and we have to knee-cap corporate media conglomerates who presently buy their influence with OUR representatives who need money to survive the money game in Waqshington.
2
The problem is that many "famous" news outlets do, indeed, air fake news. and included in the list of "famous" outlets are the NY Times, the Washington Post, and, yes, Fox News.
Even Margret Sullivan, late of the Times and now of the Post, sees the trend of "news fast" as opposed to the fundamental concept of the "news right the first time".
If our news media is to be the last line of defense against the manipulative and the false, they need to do a far better job of understanding that which is manipulative or false in what they publish.
The measure is not "getting the news"; it is "getting the news right".
2
Then that about wraps up their business. Have you watched any local TV news station lately. Almost all propaganda, corporate press releases, commercial endorsements, infotainment, political bias. 75% garbage reported as news.
2
Watermarks came into existence to validate legitimate sources and quality. A digital one could be hacked which is the problem here. Having no "reality" means there is no news only opinions. Image faking has a long history and poor ability to discern the fakes. Remember the truly awful Vermeers?
6
Watermarks are easily counterfeited. There are some very crafty people in the world.
1
One big problem is that the votes of “low information, low involvement” voters count the same as thoughtful citizens dedicated to truly understanding the issues (as best they can from sources deemed reputable). That is our system, and shouldn’t be changed, but the “low info” segment, especially when you get into Alex Jones territory, are especially vulnerable to this kind of fake manipulation. Russia, and others, are hard at work to perfect this exploitation because their goal is to see our democracy in chaos. If they can affect just enough votes to put an ignorant Putin-leaning clod like Trump in, they’ve won. Frankly, I’m starting to look back with fondness to when I used a rotary telephone and snail mail. I was also interested in self-driving technology but the prospect of sailing through a “hacked” stop sign and getting T-boned by a school bus has me firmly gripping the steering wheel.
15
We are facing not only the "Decline of the West", but the end of civilization in the world. When naive viewers of visual media begin, or rather continue, to believe in everything they see, hear, and read, total brainwashing and the rule of Big Brother have become reality.
10
There are many people who believe in magical things. Confronted with false stories they may stop and think, "Could that be true? Well, stranger things have happened". Of course the strange things they think happen aren't actually real. They would have a tendency to believe in Pizza Gate, and murderer Hillary, and that Donald Trump is a good businessman. They cannot tell what is real and what is not. The tech is going to make them very susceptible to complete manipulation. Not that they weren't already completely manipulated. I don't know if the new tech will be able to fool additional people, especially since people who are capable of being aware will become more aware of the tech and what people do with it. Most people given the Pizza Gate fake story knew it was fake.
11
The silver lining in the new abilities of manipulation is that *all* phototgraps will likely be seen for what they are: an opinion, not some ground truth.
Pre-digital photographs and video already have a strong opportunity to affect public opinion simply through cropping and choice of subject. This property has been well understood for more than a century and was used to great effect by the propaganda arms of the USSR and Nazis, not to mention the "good guys" like the WPA, anti-segregation activists and the like. To paraphrase an Italian saying, "to photograph is to betray".
It is quite trivial for modern cryptographic techniques to guarantee that a photograph shown is an unedited version of what the photographer snapped, although camera manufacturers have resisted adding the capability for some reason. Even if they do, of course, this doesn't fix the "choice of picture" problem.
There are applications now that can mimic your voice perfectly after only recording a few sentences. So I can ask you some questions in an interview and once the answers are broadcast anyone can type anything and project those words with your voice. Think of it as Photoshop for speech. The potential for fake reality, let alone fake news, has arrived.
6
Exactly. This piece focuses on video, but audio also something that can easily be manipulated.
Education and a general understanding of the world is disappearing in this country. Sold for fun and profit. Our public airwaves are used to hark sweets and machine generated comics to children, not to explain the Universe to them. Dumb people are easy to manipulate. The Russian figured that one out. We can't even get it together for this years election and November will bring new surprises. One thing I know: deluded societies suffer catastrophic events.
16
"software available for free download on Reddit" huh? Reddit isn't a platform for hosting software. You might learn about such software on Reddit (or in this NYT article), but you won't be able to download it from Reddit.
3
I guess it's come to hope.
Hope for new technology to save us from modern technology.
Maybe, IBM's Watson can monitor and flag any post with false information, imagery, and sound
4
An even scarier scenario:
Imagine its 2018, unchecked monopolizing of information channels by huge conglomerates rule the day. Across the landscape, there is a coordinated effort to lace every story, editorial, and even hypothetical fluff pieces with political messaging. Low information voters are made to believe they have gotten the information, but in truth they are instead simply fed the beliefs of those who create it.
We are now in political war with Russia, we have always been at war with Russia. You feel certain of this, even though you hazily recall that not so long ago, you felt certain they were little more than a right-wing boogeyman.
Before you can put much thought into it, you turn on your TV for some late night comedy. They confirm all of the beliefs you now hold. You can rest easy
1
Why is it “impossible” to stop the advance of this sort of technology? For that matter, why is it “impossible” to shut down Fox ideology? Since when is technological research immune to ethics and morality? And since when does free speech give license to Fox to lie and manipulate under the banner of “news?” Both technologists and media outlets are answerable to what are called ethics and morality. The so-called neutrality of technology and the media is just that: so-called. The pundits are perpetrating some bad thinking.
10
"...Imagine it is the spring of 2016. A bottom-feeding political opposition-research firm, perhaps tied to Russia, “surfaces” a dossier of a sex scense starring an younger-than-71-year-old Donald Trump. It is soon debunked as a fake, the product of a money-friendly fabulist former British spy that employs generative adversarial agency networking to convincingly swap one dubious source into several less dubious ones...
1
I like the term "informational virus" and y'all should start using it more often.
2
Reality has always been subject to manipulation for socio-economic-political purposes. Long before Galileo was threatened by the powers to be for daring to suggest the earth was not the center of the universe; or even Socrates was driven to his death for questioning the powers to be of Athens. From torturing people during the inquisitions; burning them at the stake for witchcraft; justifying genocide, slavery, and war in the name of made up truths, challenging, manipulating, altering, and ridiculing truth has long been a staple of controlling power and the social media of the day - gossip, religion, a dishonest press, and autocratic governments - its weaponized form.
Relative to the world that was our ability to discern the truth, or the ease with which lies and deceptions are made to appear truthful is little changed between then and now or what will likely bein the future.
Ultimately, the real ally of the deceit is not in the technology but rather the willful ignorance of people to accept whatever convenient notion fits their pre-conceived ends. If nothing else, Donald Trump has demonstrated such willful ignorance remains in abundant supply.
7
All bets are off for our elections, given that Trump is acting as a Russian agent and the GOP in Congress are committed to support anything he does like ticks on a dog! It is still baffling that the political party most associated with anti-communism is dismantling our democracy on behalf of the Russians.
8
Mr Trump is already considering how he can use this technology, not to create movies, but as a way of justifying / excusing any embarrassing footage yet to be uncovered.
"Fake footage!
"You know, I know; we all know how these things are done. Amazing technology but all fake. God bless America...."
7
The human imagination, in conjunction with technology, has become a force so potent that it really can no longer be unleashed on the surface of the planet with safety.
Terence McKenna
You're a bit late to the party. Throw in the utter vacuousness of the modern political person - candidate and acolyte - which renders them capable of calumny and culpable of credulity, respectively, and you've created the climate for control. And that's what this long game has been about. After succeeding in controlling every tangible aspect of modern life, the final frontier of mind control on a massive scale has been breached. The worldwide feudal state is within sight. Now where are those rose colored glasses?
2
We need to start teaching fact from fiction and instill an ethos of truth in the early school years. Millions of Americans are gullible and particularly prone to propaganda because they lack the tools to discern reality from fantasy. Only education can serve as a bulwark against the Sean Hannity’s of the world.
95
First of all, I think the approach Mark suggests is what is most urgently needed - re-introduce critical thinking into the educational system.
That said, it's worth pointing out that there is a long tradition of using technology to fight tech problems - witness the war between hackers and security providers. In this particular case, it may be possible to at least partially address this issue by building into cameras the ability to generate a block-chain stamp for each photo or video. Sure, the bad guy could block-chain his doctored photo as well, but the existence of a mathematically verifiable original would help discredit subsequent altered photos.
4
Good point, except that I'd add the Rachel Maddows and Keith Olbermanns of the world.
On second thought, unfortunately the block-chain idea won't stop bad guys from creating phony photos from a blank slate. Such manufactured photos would be genuinely original albeit phony.
So that brings it back to the the core problem/solution identified by Mark - "instill an ethos of truth in the early school years"
1
The potential is there. The probability that the Democrats will use this against the Republicans is high considering their recently revealed history.
You cannot make a person believe something they do not wish to believe. If you present them with the truth, they won't "believe" it, if they would prefer an alternative, and if you present them with lies, they won't admit them as lies, if they'd prefer those lies to be true.
We live in a land of mental toddlers, for in nature it is only during early development that humans cry and tantrum when reality doesn't "listen" to their desires. In the past, we grew out of this stage into adulthood; today, we are a nation of babies. Our infantile views on the world allow our nation, yearly, to fall behind the views acknowledged by other developed democracies as they surpass us in math and science scores, health care outcomes, and dozens of other metrics.
We're "hackable" precisely because we refuse to grow up and call a spade a spade, if it suits our purposes to say that two plus two equals five.
37
Like Twain said (or maybe it was Will Rogers...) "It's a lot easier to lie to someone than to convince them they've been lied to."
2
This morning on NPR, I listened to an item which concerned a "BOT" attack on Republican Congress members to "release the memo". The attack was alleged to consist of many thousands of auto tweets, probably generated by "alt right" and/or Russian operatives to pressure Republicans and POTUS to release Devin Nunes' Memo of accusations of FBI wrong-doing. If this is true, it certainly gives good reason for calling such organized attacks a BOT attack for the following reason: Bot flies are a real pest inasmuch as they target a victim en mass and lay millions of eggs; when the eggs hatch, the maggots begin to consume the victim, usually resulting in death. How similar to the unscrupulous attacks of political operatives who wish to destroy a democracy.
1
Thank you so much Henry for your insights into the world of Fake anything. I’m a video producer and have been somewhat familiar with several of your Fake News possibilities both now and in the future.
I was born in 1938. How did we get, and believe reality back then? Newspapers and Newsreels at the movie theater. TV didn’t hit most of the US until the late 40’s and early 50’s and most of those shows were entertainment. When Walter Cronkite and several other’s came onto the scene on TV, that also became real to most of us. If someone like Walter Cronkite stated something, that was like a member of the Clergy saying something in your place of worship. Life was so simple back then.
Fast forward to today. You know why someone like Trump is in office? It’s very plain and simple. Way too many individuals have never taken the time to find the truth. Fox News is a perfect example of how Truth can be twisted so easily. If you think it’s bad now, just wait for the future like Henry mentions. When that time comes, how will you really know Truth? Now you’ll have to rely on what is inside of you to unravel it. Imagine Trump’s base with that scenario. So Sad!
9
Technology developing to point that fake video and audio becomes so convincing it can't be distinguished from real recordings of reality? Technology and all arts and sciences developing to point that we can immerse humans in realities indistinguishable from reality, but which of course aren't real and can be manipulated in various ways apart from reality?
This process seems inevitable, culmination of humans first immersive experiences in dramatic art, music, poetry, literature. In short for all science, push to truth, sophistication of dichotomy between real and fake demonstrates living life is an art. The sad thing though is there never have been any political orders which have used the arts, immersive experience and imagination, to educate, let alone have political orders been forthcoming with anything like scientific truth.
Rather politics, whether you speak of religion or propaganda or advertising, not to mention all which falls into realm of "morality", rather seeks to immerse people into states of being controlled, seeks to hypnotize people to particular behavior and thought patterns. We can imagine a future though in which children are brought up in completely artificial realities and they pass through increasingly sophisticated stages on their way to actual truth as best known by their society--that they are not compromised by power, the political/economic order of their time.
For now though, just expect power of almost any type to attempt to control reality.
1
“Democracy assumes that its citizens share the same reality. We’re about to find out whether democracy can be preserved when this assumption no longer holds.”
Haven’t we already seen that our democracy can’t be preserved? It’s been dead for a long, long time.
1
Hacking should be very concerning. Special effects will only get better in time and nearly anything could be doctored and seem very real. There should be a way to verify if something is indeed real, however it may soon be impossible in only two to five years from now. Rest in peace democracy, and ultimately reality, if anything in this article is true soon, which unfortunately may happen in a few years time.
2
Non-skeptical belief (faith) is problem 1. Opinion is problem 2.
There is a department of weights and measures for one reason: agreement.
Should there not be a metric by which we can measure truth? This is where we are now. Truth is being questioned.
7
“What is truth?” asked Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.
If the damage from the "memo" scared me more than the "election" of 2016, this article terrifies me. And should terrify anyone who loves this country and the democracy experiment that is US (we). Digging out of this hole looks less and less possible.
When the Republican Party gave a platform to Joseph McCarthy, took on John Foster Dulles' "domino theory," and elected Richard Nixon, its members could scarecely have foreseen the consequences that led to their "quintessential" current occupier of the White House. Now with a majority in all three branches of government and Koch, Mercer, Pope, etc., money behind them, can they find a moral compass? Doubtful.
7
I would recommend you read "Not Amused" article, above; she has hit the nail on the head. We indeed live in a land of "Mental toddlers".
1
This thoughtful article offers cautionary words that lead me to the obvious conclusion that if it were not for journalists and other societal and cyber "watch dogs," the majority of us who use electronic devices almost hourly would remain willing or unwilling dupes to whomever or whatever decides to fool our otherwise unsuspecting natures. Pity the more celebrities, alive or dead, who are in the public eye. They of course are the most vulnerable to video hacking, because their faces (and bodies) carry the most interest; the public seems unsparing in their desire, since whenever gossip was invented, to hear about their exploits, the racier and more shocking the better. It's interesting as a side note to all this to realize that Trump, no computer wiz or hacker himself but very definitely a celebrity, uses technology very effectively for this very purpose to spike interest in what he thinks and says, in an obvious effort to shock, bluff, or simply gloat.
2
“and you can literally make anyone say anything — or at least seem to.“
Sounds like deal breaker doesn’t it.
Unless all media, including social media can find an effective way to police this, we are looking into a dark future where truth is irrelevant and meaningless.
A dream come true for old school post modern deconstructionists but a nightmare for the rest of us.
3
We are living through our own accelerated future. Star Trek had an episode with falsified surveillance footage that baffled the crew. Now it becomes our presence. Only strong cryptography will guarantee authenticity. The MPEG chip in the camera watermarks the footage with a hardware key; everything I send wil carry my pgp signature. Everything else is not from me. And do guard your private keys.
4
In order to preserve our democracy, we must be aggressively conservative. We are already at a point where many folks do not know whether what they are seeing is real, or simply assume it is. Video and virtual reality will only make things worse. If we do not act now, the alternative is right in front of our eyes: the Fox Trump Republican fake news and conspiracy theory ecosystem.
Among other things, we must:
* Use printed ballots that can be audited.
* Get rid of the advertising-funded internet model which has become a behavior modification device for bad actors.
* Completely reform the present campaign donation regime.
* Restore the Fairness Doctrine which President Reagan cancelled. (The Supreme Court has yet to review the Constitutionality of Regan's action.)
* Blackout political news for specified periods before elections.
* Regulate the big tech firms (i.e., monopolies) insofar as how their activities relate to politics and elections.
* Support the real free press by subscribing to publications like this paper.
* Vote.
11
Technology is great until it isn't. We need rules and regulations to help combat this threat on our democracy. Once FB decided to add their news feed they needed to be held to the same standards as radio, TV, print news so that people can identify where the material is coming from and can more easily identity what is real and what is fake.
Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would help as well. We need to be given both sides of the issues so that we can make a more informed choice. News media shouldn't be allowed to engage in propaganda to the extent that Fox news has been allowed to do. The British recently pulled Fox news from broadcasting for violating their impartiality rules.
6
Beyond new frontiers of propaganda are more basic problems. Georgia is one of six states that has electronic voting systems with no paper trails. Its election machines have been hacked. For several months, the whole system was completely vulnerable to hacking as experts found out. Did this impact the presidential election? The special elections?
Russia had a huge cyberattack against our electoral system, and virtually nothing has been done to protect us. They now have the hacked voter databases for numerous states. Is there a stage 2 to this?
Why isn't Congress putting together a special voting commission and authorizing funds to upgrade all voting equipment in the nation to prevent this from recurring? Democracy matters more than tax cuts for the rich, or a million more investigations of Hillary or whatever.
No one seems to be protecting America since Ryan, McConnell, Nunes, and the rest of the Russian conspirators spend all their time and energy protecting Trump.
15
Like newspapers and TV new rooms, social media need gatekeepers -- editors and fact checkers -- to insure the accuracy of their content. It's not enough to assume that healthy skepticism and critical thinking will help users and viewers separate fact from fiction, especially among Trump's followers.
3
I believe POTUS counts on his followers' inability to separate fact from fiction. Is that not how he got elected ?
Though hacking our elections is extreme concerning, I wouldn't vote Democratic if they selected Kristin Gillibrand as their nominee. I'm sorry, but the Democrats need to pick a candidate that anyone can support, not just who the elite want. Hacking is very concerning, but someone who is electable should be more important to the Democrats.
1
The only way out is democracy. But not just voting and listening to rousing speeches and watching interminable debates, but a dynamic democracy which involves us constantly together in a learning enterprise working to understand, confront and solve our problems. One that can couple together all our imagination and creativity that we can collectively muster. To this point when faced with problems like false cyber realities, we look like a the fragmented hopeless lot we've become, but there is tremendous potential here if we can only find our way out of this depressing wealth situated political rot we have accepted and simply learn to embrace a democracy of potential instead of on that is forced on us by the power in money. We must find and make a democracy of potential and learn how to become a nation united in search of that potential.
1
Of all the things we should be teaching children today, one should be that, for all intents and purposes, they ARE their attention. It is what everyone else — for commercial, political, and social reasons — wants a piece of. Teaching them that their attention is their most valuable asset and that it should be spent wisely might lay the foundations of a savvier electorate. Of course, they already know that we live in an age of technological smoke and mirrors. They know how content gets patched together. They probably understand the potential tyranny of the visual image better than we do. Let’s teach them one thing than can’t be faked: the moral implications of attention and a tenacious demand for the truth.
1
Fascinatingly, the manipulation of internet information renders the internet virtually useless except as a form of commercial entertainment. It cannot be trusted for facts. One can only hope that channels/platforms emerge or reform that can win the trust of the viewership.
3
It is "interesting" that the authors of this piece would purposefully select an actual public figure as the subject of the frightening, future world of ultra weaponized, fake videos, and an aspiring, attractive Democratic female Senator no less. Why not choose for an additional example, or the sole one, a Republican personality, say the present religion-embracing Vice President, caught in a compromising phony video with someone other than his spouse? Or no living individual at all?
By creating a clear false equivalency later in the piece between the constant, over the top outrages of Fox News and the measured counter responses of some cable news shows, readers might reasonably wonder whether a certain bias and agenda are at play here, even a possible implied suggestion that some dark, preemptive future action be taken against a certain national political figure. Just thinking.
2
My grandfather, a small city newsman during the depression and war, told my mother she should believe nothing that she heard and only half of what she saw. Now he'd amend that to believe nothing that we see either.
We need to start really emphasizing critical thinking skills. My kids took an AP Global history course which taught them to look at original documents and ask questions. Who wrote this? What was their situation, job, class, position that might bias the document. What point of view is missing? How truthful can we rate it?
We need to do that more and more with our news. We used to be able to do it by reading two papers, say the Times and the WSJ. But fewer and fewer news providers are editing their news for truth or fact. We are no longer trying to weed out ingrained bias, but outright misdirection, outright lies. The Nunez memo is a prime example.
So video truth was already susceptible to editing; now it is susceptible to fabrication. We are reliant on editors more than ever, even as we cut them out.
3
Michael Chrichton predicted this in his 1992 novel, 'Rising Sun'. Digital video image manipulation was a major plot point of the book.
There are ways that this kind of deceit can be mitigated - somewhat. Requiring proof of when, where, how and by whom the video was taken is one step; requiring a sort of 'provenance'. Another would be to create digitally encrypted 'signatures' for video (and audio) that contain this provenance information. This temporal and location information then could be used to prove that the video or audio is fake if, for instance, Sen. Gillibrand could show that she was 800 miles away from the location at the time it was supposedly created. Finally, strong criminal and civil legal remedies could be enacted to discourage it from happening in the first place.
2
The technology will only make the already depraved a little bit more so. Just in this article the authors put out a hypothetical example and some of the more notorious commenters instantly tried to capitalize on it because it involved someone whose politics they don't like. The technology that enabled this has been around for a very long time.
I don't have an answer to this, except that now it's time to clearly understand the sources of data. Data that simply appears out of no where, via thousands of likes on Facebook or retweets, shouldn't be treated as credible. Journalism needs to be as much about truth as it is about story telling, and gee-whiz stories about "how could this lie go so far" need to take a back seat to "this is a lie."
Technology that enhances our abilities to be our worst selves won't stop, but we don't need to celebrate it or be particularly fascinated when someone who is not nice is once again acting out who they really are.
2
This calls for laws to be developed to make it a criminal offense to “ plagiarize” sounds and images. If it already is illegal then the penalties need to be modified to become real deterrents.
Control of the internet by governments will be the end result of not getting this problem under control.
3
The implication is to then think everything is fake. If everything is fake then no one can readily tell where truth is. An industry already distrusted by many falls further into disbelief. Criers of "fake news" win as they don't have to get rid of the first amendment, just make it meaningless.
The authors should have considered that their own piece however well intentioned is a scare tactic too. Without a proposal to address it it is the same approach they warn others about. Find the truth.
2
Go low-tech and require that only print media be utilized for state and national campaign advertising? In other words, any social media/video content would be considered “unofficial”/ “unauthorized.” Sounds premature, but the problems the technology will cause are going to necessitate a solution, not meetings and hearings and segments on cable news. Look at how the 2016 pres campaign was manipulated...and that was mostly info, not just images. This will gradually, then suddenly, become a crisis — unless we get out ahead of it and act.
2
Very interesting. Long ago when messages were vital, a person would imprint his 'signature' roll into wax to seal a document. Can the major distributors (twitter, facebook, Fox) insist on an absolute identification of the originator of anything, a twitter post, a video, etc. I am sure it is technically possible, and also easy to circumvent. Youtube could do this, too.
Would it take a law, to make it illegal to distribute unidentified "information" of any kind? Certainly, we would see a lot less stuff out there.
I read that half the stuff on Reddit is fake. Don't know it is true or not.
3
This is not science fiction nor is it fake. What is missing from this reality check is the pervasive and addictive behavior of millennials regarding their cellphones. My students (I am a public school journalism teacher) are demonstrably addicted to their phones en masse. They have almost non-existent computer skills and can only keyboard when required to do so, and have no idea how a computer works. Witness the Apple commercial of the sixth-grader using her iPad and when queried what she is doing on her computer her response is, "What's a computer?"
The upshot of this behavior is the extraordinary susceptibility of these immature, uncritical teens to data manipulation. Anyone who has taught the middle school and high school age group knows how gullible these kids are and how easily they are influenced by peer pressure. Use the right recipe and these kids will be bought and paid for by the time they vote.
4
" . . .and up will be down, and left will be right, and light will be dark, and wrong will be right. And truth? Truth will be anything."
Apparently, we are already there.
2
OK, it may not be CGI but the rush limbaugh, FoxNews, Brietbart and company are already doing a pretty similar job. Another sign that the Government of the people, by the people, for the people may very well perish from the earth after all.
2
Our political future is certainly hackable when we have a president, administration and Congress that refuses to acknowledge its existence, fails to lift a finger to stop it, and obstructs any and all attempts to investigate it.
Being Russia's puppet state feels much worse than the relatively benign colonization by Britain must have felt 250 years ago.
5
Democracy does not assume that its citizens share the same reality, it assumes a system that reduces opportunities for cheating so disagreements can be resolved or at least temporarily bypassed to make progress. Fake video, like fake news, is a form of cheating but so also is voter suppression and tampering. In some ways the former is more pernicious than the latter though since it is not criminal and subject to prosecution.
Think of it as the corollary to Gresham's Law: bad information drives out good; do that long enough and all information becomes suspect after which a democratic choice becomes virtually indistinguishable from a random one.
3
Mr. Farrell should also examine whether the ability to blame manipulated images and sounds could be used by the perpetrators to deny real events. For example, a future candidate, like Trump, could deny the reality of an Access Hollywood tape, arguing that it was created by his opponents. Truth, or "truthiness" can be undone by both sides.
2
Fake campaign ads are nothing new, only today's sophisticated techniques make them more damaging.
In 1950, Maryland Democratic Senator Millard Tydings ran for re-election. He was Chairman of a Senate committee looking into Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy's viscous attempt to paint the Truman administration as filled with Communists and Communist sympathizers. One of the Committee witnesses was Earl Browder, former head of the American Communist Party.
When Browder stepped down from the questioning, Tydings said in the customary fashion, "Thank you, sir."
Soon a picture appeared to be widely circulated in Maryland of Tydings and Browder in apparent friendly conversation elsewhere than in the Senate setting and under it Tydings was quoted as saying to Browder "thank you, sir."
The Republican attack squad had taken a picture of Tydings talking to another man and substituted Browder's face on the other man's body.
It worked. Maryland voters who like almost all Americans of the day were afraid of Communists voted against Tydings and he was defeated.
The campaign "sewage" continues only with today's techniques on a far more sophisticated and damaging level.
2
Why do you assume only one political party or belief would use such technology in your implied "news" story? Mr. Farrell is careful to create a scenario wherein only operatives of the far alt right are used as examples. Why is this? Of course, critics of this response will righteously claim, indignantly, no such attack would ever be sanctioned by anyone on the left. Yet, here is this article, artfully weaving and worming its narrative, whispering its propaganda into the minds of those with the assurance of an already predisposed comformational bias. This, in better times, is call propaganda folks, and should be seen exactly for what it is. Now, least anyone think I'm a Trump supporter, I am not. I have never voted Republican in my life. I have also read the Times since the late '60's and I can say with all honesty that I have never experienced a period so biased in its Op-Ed pages as in the past year. Almost to the point that the forth estate has become its very own political entity. This is danger to our democracy. It is incumbent on the press to report the news in a completely unbiased fashion. Playing on the insecurities of the populace, creating fear and frenzy, exhibiting speculative forms of journalism such as this is more than simply a disservice. It is a lie.
Too bad this opinion piece had to veer off the rails of it's point to bring up Fox news as though Fox had a monopoly on news tainted with a point of view. Yes, technology described here will challenge us in ways we may not be able to imagine. But not a day goes by where even the written "new" word has an underlying hypothesis that taints the news. In my opinion, finding unbiased news that provides the facts while letting the reader form his/her own opinion, is becoming increasingly rare. That feels just as dangerous, if not more so, than technology manipulation.
Where does "free speech" stop?
Why is targeting an individual, threatening them, manipulating their images and words in negative, career-ending and life-devastating ways and broadcasting it to the world, protected free speech?
That is not "sharing your political views"--that is a personal attack.
Just because that person is famous, it is no excuse. If someone has a beef with someone else's views, then talk about the issue, not attack and harass the individual. That is one area of "free speech" that needs to be reined in.
3
And now it seems possible that unscrupulous drones may not only construct false news but now may be able to construct visual data to support their lies. Will we some day in the near future see new trending reality television where competing teams will be able to show their ability to create and battle for the prize of what seems more true but really isn't?
This article brings to mind my idea to offer an app that is able to take any piece of digital information and using facial recognition technology replace any facial image that has become too common and intrusive, replace it with another of your own choosing. Think of the humor of reality tv possibilities of competitions where you can see a common, all to arrogant voice issuing from a facial image of choice. This, of course should destroy the possibility of anyone actually believing anything they see, hear or believe, either recorded or streamed that they haven't in real life themselves. But that isn't a bad thing, is it?
Of course then, recorded visions of past events could never be relied on, but a new industry could develop confirming real reality as opposed technically altered or created reality and that could really help boost the economy, couldn't it?
Can't stop (shouldn't stop) technology. Our best bet is to strengthen democratic institutions, promote critical thinking in our education system and support a free media.
1
As much as this article is geared toward the worry of this sort of thing being implemented into politics, I think it is more worry some for celebrities. Yes, you will still find major politicians like Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and even Putin pop up in these falsifying videos, but people with a lick of common sense can see when these things are fake. With celebrities, people of both large or small backings are the ones to be worried about this sort of technology. The general public are more inclined to believe minor or major celebrities, aside from politics, would be involved in a picture, video, or gif in the same way Kirsten Gillibrand was. I don’t discourage the idea that people in the political realm are being used for this type of slandering, however I do believe it is discredited much quicker than it may be for someone like Emma Watson or Jennifer Lawrence, who are more popular and sexualized than most politicians.
Perhaps instead of having debates, we should have more people playing 3 truths and 1 lie to build up the public's ability to spot untruths. Or in the case of this administration, 3 lies and 1 truth.
1
A democracy is depended on educated citizens being skeptical of what they are told by self serving politicians and the press. The saying, “Don’t believe everything you read in the paper,” is doubly true for the internet. Today the news comes in all sizes and from all media and to complete each story is laced with what the ancient Greeks called sophistry, an attempt to manipulate people with emotional arguments and circumstantial evidence. The problem is not that technology is making fake news more difficult to discern but that once reputable news sources now panders to emotions and sensationalism. Trump lies and the press counters by hyping everything he does as having world ending consequences. The flimsiness of the facts in each “breaking new” story is filled in with extraneous information that provides a false context to shores up a fake narrative. This more insidious form of lying is designed to deceive and requires no technological enhancements to sell it fake news to a readership that has already fully bought into its premise. Each side has made up their minds and the news caters to its readers with emotional depth charges that are full of fire and fury but that signify nothing.
2
" Democracy assumes that its citizens share the same reality."
A false presumption. Is the reality of a poverty stricken black mother who is barely able to feed her children the same as the reality of those on Wall street buying five million dollar apartments in Manhattan with their bonus for the year?
And your ordinary everyday person is savvy to the facts of advertising fantasy, we all know that we aren't really going to look like the model in the ad if we buy the advertised sweater. And most of us know not to click on links in our emails even though the sender appears valid. We are used to fake, it is part of our collective consciousness.
We will cope by discounting video evidence, that is not the end of the world. Meanwhile, technology will catch up, and find ways to validate the real deal.
Our current political scene and its actors do not need technical manipulation......they are already unbelievable, especially when we have our own elected Darth Vader.
This is, unfortunately, an old story: Technology invented for one purpose being used for another, more nefarious one.
Sharpened blades used for farming and clearing of land eventually became swords to kill. Rudimentary guns used for hunting were eventually turned on humans and evolved to be more and more deadly over time. Nuclear technology was purposed for bombs. Here we have a technology that can create incredibly realistic fake images, depicting events and scenes that never actually occurred.
What connects all of this is the lack of ethical and moral guideposts of some people. People who would willingly lie, cheat and do virtually anything at all to win a political contest are horribly flawed to their core. Unfortunately, this technology just gives them yet another tool for dirty tricks. This is a high tech version of stuffing ballot boxes, creating fake voting profiles for people who don't exist and physically limiting access to polls,
It is about man, not machine. But while we can create a technology to depict things that never happened, we can't seem to invent a way to fix the rotted souls of some people.
4
Both journalists and the general public need to become more technologically savvy and critical. Rather than reporting on or accepting every new video or image as truth, people need to first question its authenticity.
However, in the age of the quick news cycle and short, non-investigative articles rehashing press releases, it's hard for more investigative, thorough analysis of news items. And even if major news organizations provide that analysis, it's harder for them to counteract the numerous disreputable organizations willing to present doctored or made up information as facts.
However, it's not just journalists' responsibility to recognize falsehoods, it's everyone's responsibility. It's a sign of the American education that so many cannot identify obvious lies. The American education and society places an almost detrimental weight on debate and having two sides to an argument. I remember taking an AP US History exam and in part of the essay section, we had to use provided primary source evidence to build up an argument. We were told by our teachers that the argument had to be well presented, but didn't have to use the primary sources accurately. We were also told that if we argued an unpopular hypothesis, we might get better grades because there'd be less basis for comparison. Recognizing nuance and being able to see other sides to an argument are useful skills, but sometimes, there is a wrong answer, no matter how convincingly it is argued.
20
According to the NYT article the technology was used by Hollywood to create an illusion. Should we have banned Hollywood from using this technology? I work in the entertainment industry and I can tell you that this sort of thing has been happening for a while now, especially with still images. Has technology reached a tipping point.
8
False equivalence. This op-ed is discussing the use of this technology for libelous or criminal ends, not for entertainment value.
"Democracy assumes that its citizens share the same reality. We’re about to find out whether democracy can be preserved when this assumption no longer holds."
We saw it in the last election. Pizzagate drove one "fact checker" with a gun to the pizza parlor to take out whoever it found--presumably Hillary Clinton in a back room cavorting with kids.
It's sickening. And sick. Partisans stopping at nothing--even a hit job on Planned Parenthood by the aforementioned "O'Keefe", distortion artists for hire, anything goes for a buck or two.
If we think identity fraud is bad, just wait until our personalities and reputations can be re-purposed at will to make just enough of an impression as to either keep a voter from voting or once there, to pull a predictable lever.
If there is no truth, there is no government except a totalitarian one. Period.
We see what happens when "low-information" voters encounter lies. Lacking the skills--or more importantly, the motivation--to check out sources, they believe what they choose to watch on TV or online.
It's been said before but it can't be said enough: democracy depends on two viable parties and a sufficient number of citizens engaged in the preservation of our democracy.
If one side makes things up, and the other numbly acquiesces, or has no answers to combat all this willful manipulation, then the common refrain is, we deserve the country, and government we get.
I think that's where we're at, frankly.
129
"...democracy depends on two viable parties..."
I agree with everything you've said in your comment but would also point out that the second party DOES NOT NEED TO BE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. They have failed our nation's democracy in so many ways that it is time to throw them out and let a newer, more responsible group of people to form a party and help the Democratic Party govern this nation.
8
I understand what you're saying here, but of course, we don't "deserve what we get."
Obviously "what we get" will be the product of decades of power piled up by the Koch brothers and the Mercers et al, with Citizens United, crazy-looking maps of Wisconsin and North Carolina for Republican-dominated voting districts, etc, to create the McConnells and Ryans of our world, with their pasted-on smiles, and their campaign chests filled wildly by the 1%.
Prevented from having a real voice for so long, and no one seems willing or able to stand up to the very rich and thier power, we need to stop saying "We deserve what we get..."
We in fact deserve a democracy. Let's start from there. Let's reverse Citizens United. That will be a big first step to taking back power for the people. I'm no lawyer, but perhaps it should be on the ballot for 2020. This would be something worth having on the Democratic platform.
1
Wonder what we as a society would be had we held onto the antiquated idea of honesty first, last, and always, rather than the "whatever it takes" attitude that prevails now. There has always been schiesters, but it appears to have become simply the way to go. And when you see your neighbor or representative openly getting away with it, you jump on the wagon too, rationalizing it's the only way to not be completely trampled.
1
I would think there are digital traces left behind when videos contain fabrications. The natural response to the threat would seem to be an effort to clarify standards for video production so that any video can be subjected to a kind authenticity test. News outlets could adopt this system as a way to enhance their credibility.
But there would have to be some kind of political buy in. Here is the real problem.
39
This is exactly the sort of view that validates precisely the dangers that the writer is concerned about.
Your comments indicate that you can just "fix" this problem after the fact. After everybody has seen the video. *After the damage is done.* The author's first few paragraphs almost paint this picture expressly.
It's great to have debunking software. While that software is running, malicious actors are off to their next project, the intended damage already having been inflicted.
8
Exactly. Digital rights management (DRM) exists already in the music biz. Encryption and digital marking of source video proves its authenticity. Why not use it for universal DRM of source videos from reputable sources. But then again, there would have to be some political buy in. Election 2018 will tell.
1
Still images for forensic use can be so tagged. Moving images? Hackable? Will the media bother?
1
It is scary. Our politics have become a zero sum game where smearing the opponent is more important than sharing ideas or suggesting what the candidate her/himself would do, if elected. We already have edited and distorted tapes, which for the gullible or merely willing, provide 'evidence' of malfeasance. What you point out is scary. It makes me wonder how democracy can really survive.
90
True enough. But the core of this particular problem is not that the technology exists and can be manipulated for ideological ends, financial gain, or bullying but that enough people fall victim to such distortions of reality that they have any impact on society and culture at all. Rather stupifying, I think.
2
>Anne-Marie
“Our politics have become a zero sum game where smearing the opponent is more important..”
“Have become”? Smearing an opponent has always been part of a politician’s arsenal. Consider the ad that Johnson ran against Goldwater in 1964, wherein the image of a 3 year old girl picking daisies segued into a nuclear explosion.
Our understanding of reality is under attack by those willing to treat statements as factual regardless of whether the statements match reality. This is fundamentally a religious impulse, in the sense that it values belief more highly than correspondence between statements and reality. As a corrective, rather than contradicting such statements, perhaps we need to label them. Which statements are made on the basis of belief, and which are tested for how well they match reality? But even if we label statements, the next complication is that groups will differ when classifying statements, because they will base their classification on different models of reality. So returning to the point of the article, the ability to hack video enables a more thorough fragmenting of our beliefs about reality. What we dispute through voting is which beliefs we would like our government to act upon. If our interest is in coming to consensus or reasonable compromise about which beliefs to act upon, we can no longer rely primarily on public discourse. It is private discourse on a massive scale that now seems ascendant as a means of forming public policy.
39
Broadcast news has been complicit in laying the groundwork for democracy's destruction. Americans, many of whom depend on local TV news, mainly see "yellow tape journalism", stories about disasters and crime with reporters in front of yellow police tape, instead of reports on government actions or national/international news. Why? Audiences watch more, because we are drawn to stories that reduce to "there but for the grace of God go I" over more substantive fare, which means more revenue. But people instinctively know something's missing, which is probably why rankings of journalism's trustworthiness keep reducing, and people mistakenly believe crime rates throughout the country have been on the rise for decades.
Fox News was able to leverage this change in TV news to both hire "trained" production staff twenty years ago, and rapidly build a disinformation network modeled on the underlying idea, pushing emotional stories, not hard news. The GOP partnered with Fox to emphasize emotional and uncritical appeals over detailed policy explanations to supporters who might not endorse many of their plans.
CNN and the others have been playing catch up ever since.
107
There are 2.3 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus and 500 million Buddhists who believe in supernatural beings, prophets and occurrences. Our past and present are hacked by our innate nurtured inability to separate the natural from the supernatural.
Our politics are tied to our theologies. Our histories are tied to our gender, color aka race, ethnicity, national origin, socioeconomics and educations. Our biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit primate ape African 300,000+ year old origin drives us to crave fat, salt, sugar, water, habitat, sex and kin by any means necessary including conflict and cooperation that can always be hacked by any means necessary.
3
A perfect example being on Sean Hannity's show last week, when they abruptly switched to aerial video footage of a car chase in Arizona when he had to admit he was wrong in claiming this very newspaper was lying when they reported that trump had tried to fire Mueller last summer.
Well Gee it already has happened, see our president. And it only works with voters with less than half a brain, like many.
95
Vulcanalex,
Trump lying every day multiple times is not good enough for you to see him through?
While technology offers frightening new possibilities for manipulating voters and election outcomes, I think the gaming of our election system is already well underway. Neither Trump nor the Republican leadership have called for a forensic investigation into Russian hacking and America's insecure voting system which relies on privately made machines and software. And they continue to falsify facts. It's chilling how easily voters can be manipulated through targeted social media and fake news/bots, and disenfranchised via gerrymandering, punitive IDs and other means to keep them from the polls. Our ancient voting systems can easily be hacked, and a foreign enemy can penetrate the machines/count software relied on by more than 21 states. And the threats continue--just look at recent elections: Virginia decertified DRE voting machines, which likely helped the Dems win. These threats put our nation at risk. Where's the outcry?
172
What a joke this is Russian hacking was nothing, the massive publicity from this "paper" and others including all that Hillary money could not beat Trump.
7
She was beaten by the rules establishing the 200+ old Electoral College. Hilary won the popular vote.
4
The outcry has been “reaudibilized” into a weak whimper.
In similar fashion, the outcry against the president for refusing to implement congressionally mandated sanctions against Russia has also been muted.
1