As technology develops and producing convincing fakes becomes a greater and greater possibility, we need to try to find new ways to cope with what we are presented with and discovering what is true and what isn't.
Unfortunately, we have no guarantee that we will not lose this battle (or even that we haven't yet actually).
A cheap and simple mitigation that has been long practiced by skeptics is to get second opinions.
I'm not sure what that would mean if there is an absolutely real looking video of somebody saying something they have never said. Right now it might help a bit, but I prefer getting access to facts rather than interpretation.
The technology that manipulates the facial features is just as easily applicable to the entire body. With audio, and some CGI props, you can make it appear that anyone you want has done anything you want to show them doing.
We need to limit our certainty to data we can source from more than one supplier, and preferably from opposing sides of the story. That's the only way we might presently gain some confidence in the authenticity of video at present.
And that's but weak authentication.
Sure, I think that's what most of us are doing right now. I was just concerned that we might get to a point when that might not be enough. But we do are best and hope for the best, right?
Yes. I also entertain the idea from time to time that the panoptic surveillance and data harvest ongoing and ubiquitous that remains yet out of reach of honest men, will soon be our proper possession.
It is done on our authority, and afforded with our funds. It is rightfully our property, not that of those to whom it presently is exclusive. Whether those as have it would deliver it or not, the incessant hum of industry spins up an ever-burgeoning plethora of means of it's attainment.
Moore's Law, I suspect, applies to hacking as well as hardware.
It actually might be impossible to fake news before too long.
I hope it works out that way!