Congress on national security risks of A.I. and deepfakes – 06/13/2019

June 15, 2019 posted by

before we begin I want to remind all members that we are an open session and as such we will discuss unclassified matters only at least have a seat our members may be wondering in a bit late we were here until 1:00 in the morning but those unarmed services were here until about 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning so you have a few groggy members here on the on the committee in the heat of the 2016 election as the Russian hacking and dumping operation became apparent my predominant concern was that the Russians would begin dumping forged documents along with the real ones that they stole it would have been all too easy for Russia or another malicious actor to cede forged documents among the authentic ones in a way that would make it almost impossible to identify or rebut the fraudulent material even if a victim could ultimately expose the forgery for what it was the damage would be done three years later we're on the cusp of a technological revolution that could enable even more sinister forms of deception and disinformation by malign actors foreign or domestic advances in AI and machine learning have led to the emergence of advanced digitally doctored types of media so-called deep fakes that enable malicious actors to foment chaos division or crisis and they have the capacity to disrupt entire campaigns including that for the presidency rapid progress and artificial intelligence algorithms has made it possible to manipulate media video imagery audio text with incredible nearly imperceptible results with sufficient training data these powerful deep fake generating algorithms can portray a real person doing something they never did or saying words they never uttered these tools are readily available and accessible and accessible to both experts and novices alike meaning that attribution of a deep fake to a specific author whether a hostile intelligence service or a single internet troll will be a constant challenge what's more once someone views a deep fake or a fake video the damage is largely done even if later convinced that what they have seen is a forgery that person may never lose completely the lingering in evident negative impression the video has left with them it is also the case that not only may fake videos be passed off as real but real information can be passed off as fake this is the so called Liars dividend in which people with propensity to deceive are given the benefit of an environment in which it is increasingly difficult for the public to determine what is true to give our members and the public a sense of the quality of deep fakes today I want to share a few short examples and even these are not the state-of-the-art the first comes from Bloomberg Businessweek and demonstrates an AI powered cloned voice of one of the journalists so let's watch the now to really put my computer voice to the test I am going to call my dear sweet mother and see if she recognizes me I'm just finishing up work and waiting for the boys to get home I think I'm coming down with a virus I was messing around with you you were talking to a computer alright it's bad enough that was a fake but he's deceiving his mother and telling her that he's got a virus that seems just downright cruel the second clip comes from courts and demonstrates a puppet master type of deep fake video as you can see these people are able to co-op the head movements of their targets if married with convincing audio you can turn a world leader into a ventriloquist dummy next a brief CNN clip highlighting new research from Professor Hany Farid an acclaimed expert on deep fakes from UC Berkeley and featuring an example of a so-called Face Swap video in which senator Elizabeth Warren's face is seamed seamlessly transplant excuse me transplanted on the body of SNL actress Kate McKinnon so the only problem in that video is Kate McKinnon actually looks a lot like Elizabeth Warren but the one on the left was actually capable were Kate McKinnon one just had Elizabeth Warren's face swapped onto her but it shows you just how convincing that kind of technology can be these algorithms can also learn from pictures of real faces to make completely artificial portraits of persons who do not exist at all can anyone here pick out which of these faces are real and which are fake and and of course as you may have all guessed all four are fake all four of those faces are synthetically created none of those people are real I think you head to 2020 and beyond the one does not need any great imagination to envision even more nightmarish scenarios that would leave the government the media and the public struggling to discern what is real and what is fake a state backed actor creates a deep fake video of a political candidate accepting a bribe with a goal of influencing an election or an individual hacker claims to have stolen audio of a private conversation between two world leaders when in fact no such conversation took place or a troll farm uses text generating algorithms to write false or sensational news stories at scale flooding social media platforms overwhelming journalists ability to verify and users ability to trust what they are seeing we're reading what enables deep fakes and other modes of disinformation to become truly pernicious is the ubiquity of social media and the velocity at which false information can spread we got a preview of what that might look like recently when a doctored video of Speaker Nancy Pelosi went viral on Facebook receiving millions of views in the span of 48 hours that video was not an A I assisted deep fake but rather a crude manual manipulation that some have called a cheap fake nonetheless the video's virality and social media demonstrates the scale of the challenge we face and the responsibilities that social media companies must confront already the companies have taken different approaches with YouTube deleting the altered video speaker Pelosi while Facebook labelled it as false and throttled back the speed it spread once it was the zine deemed fake by independent fact checkers now is the time for social media companies to put in place policies to protect users from this kind of misinformation not in 2021 after viral deep fakes have polluted the 2020 elections by then it will be too late and so in keeping with a series of open hearings that have examined different strategic challenges to our national security and our democratic institutions the committee is devoting this hearing to deep fakes and synthetic media we need to soberly understand the implications of deep fakes the underlying AI technologies and the internet platforms that give them breach before we consider appropriate steps to mitigate the potential harms we have a distinguished panel of experts and practitioners to help us understand and contextualize the potential threat of deep fakes but before turning to them I'd like to recognize ranking member Nunez for any opening statement he would like to give Thank You mr. chairman I join you in your concern about deep fakes and want to add to that fake news fake dossiers and everything else that we have in politics I do think that within all seriousness though this is this is real um if you get on online you can see picture of yourself mr. chairman on there they're quite entertaining some of them I decided not to maybe they're intending for you I decide not to play em today but with all seriousness I appreciate the panelists being here and look forward to your testimony go back I thank the ranking member without objection these opening statements will be made part of the record I'd like to welcome today's panel first Jack Clark who is the policy director of open AI a research and technology company based in San Francisco and a member of the Center for a new American securities Task Force on artificial intelligence and national security next David Dorman a professor and director of artificial intelligence the artificial intelligence Institute at the University of Buffalo until last year he was the program manager of DARPA 's Media forensics program Danielle citron is a professor of law at the University of Maryland Frances King Harry School of Law and she has co-authored several notable articles about the potential impacts of deep fakes on national security and democracy and finally mr. Clint Watts who is distinguished research fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute a senior fellow at the GM FS Alliance for securing democracy and his recent scholarship has addressed social media influence operations welcome to all of you and why don't we start with you mr. Clark German shift ranking member Nunez and committee members thank you for the invitation to testify about the national security threats posed by the intersection of AI fake content and deep fakes so what are we talking about when we discuss this subject fundamentally we're talking about digital technologies but make it easier for people to create synthetic media and that can be video images audio or text now people have been manipulating media for a very long time as you well know that things have changed recently and I think for bird two fundamental reasons for why we're here one is that the continued advancement of computing capabilities that is for the physical hardware we used to run software on that's got significantly cheaper and more powerful and at the same time software has become increasingly accessible and capable and some of this software is starting to incorporate AI which makes it dramatically easier for us to manipulate media and it allows for a step change in functionality for things like video editing or audio editing which was previously very difficult now the forces driving cheaper computing and easier to use software are fundamental to the economy and many of the innovations we've had in the last few years so when we think about AI one of the confounding factors here is Verte similar AI technologies used in the production of synthetic media or deep fakes are also likely to be used in valuable scientific research they're used by scientists to allow people with hearing issues to understand what other people are saying to them or they're used in molecular assay and other things which may revolutionize medicine now at the same time these techniques can be used for purposes for justifiably caused unease like being able to synthesize the sound of someone else's voice impersonate them on video and write text in the style they use online we've also seen researchers developed techniques but combine these things allowing them to create a virtual person who can say things what they haven't said and appear to do things that they haven't necessarily done I'm sure that members of the committee are familiar with their run-ins with the media and know just how awkward it can be to have words put in your mouth that you didn't say so deep fakes take this problem and potentially accelerate it so how might we approach this challenge I actually think there are several interventions that we can make and this will improve the state of things one is institutional interventions it may be possible for large-scale technology platforms to try and develop and share tools for the detection of malicious synthetic media at both the individual account level and the platform level and we could imagine these companies working together privately as they do today we have cyber security where they exchange threat intelligence with each other and with other actors to develop a shared understanding of all this looks like we can also increase funding so as mentioned dr. David Dorman previously leaded our program here we have existing initiatives that are looking at the detection of these technologies and I think that it would be judicious to consider expanding that funding further so that we can develop better insights here I think we can measure this and what I mean by measurement is that it's great but we're here now ahead of 2020 but these technologies have been in open development for several years now and it's possible for us to read research papers read code talk to people and we could have created quantitative metrics for the advance of this technology for several years and I strongly believe that government should be in the business of measuring and assessing these threats by looking directly at the scientific literature and developing a base of knowledge from which to work out next steps being forewarned is forearmed here and we can do that I think we also need to do work at the level of norms so at open AI we've been thinking about different ways to release or talk about the technology but we develop I think that it's challenging because science runs on openness and we need to preserve that so that science continues to move forward but we do need to consider different ways of releasing technology or talking to people about the technology but we're creating ahead of us releasing it finally I think we need comprehensive AI education none of this works if people don't know what they don't know and so we need to give people the tools to let them understand that this technology has arrived and though we may make a variety of interventions to deal with the situation they need to know that it exists so as I hope this testimony has made clear I don't think AI is the cause of this I think AI isn't accelerant to an issue that's been with us for some time and we do need to take steps here to deal with this problem because the pace of this is challenging thank you very much thank you mr. doorman Thank You chairman Schiff ranking member Nunez distinguished members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning to discuss the challenges of countering media manipulation at scale for more than five centuries authors have used variations of the phrase seeing is believing but in just the past half decade we've come to realize that that's not longer always true in late 2013 I was given the opportunity to join DARPA as a program manager and was able to address a variety of challenges facing our military and our intelligence communities although I'm no longer representative of DARPA I did start the media forensics program metaphor and it was created to address the many technical aspects about the problems that we're talking about today the general problem of metaphor is addressing our limited ability to analyze detect and address manipulated media that at the time was being used by increased frequency with increased frequency by our adversaries it's clear that our manual processes despite being carried out by exceptionally competent analysts and personnel in the in the government at the time could not deal with the problem at scale that the manipulated content was being created and proliferated in typical DARPA fashion the government got ahead of this problem knowing that it was a marathon not a sprint and that the program was designed to address both current and evolving capable ation capabilities not with a single point solution but with comprehensive approach what was unexpected however was the speed at which this manipulation technology would evolve in just the past five years we have gone from a new technology that could produce novel results at the time but nowhere near what could be done manually with basic desktop editing software to open source software such as deep fakes that can take the manual effort completely out of the equation now there's nothing fundamentally wrong with or evil about the underlying technology that grew rise the concerns that we're testifying about today like basic image and video desktop editors deep fakes is only a tool and there are a lot more positive applications of generative networks than there are negative ones as of today there are point solutions that can identify deep fakes reliably but it's only because the focus of those developing the deep fakes like technology have been on visual deception not on covering up trace evidence if history is any indicator it's only a matter of time before the current detection capabilities will be rendered less effective in part because some of the same mechanisms that are used to create this content are also used to cover them up I want to make it clear however that combating synthetic and multi and manipulated media at scale is not just a technical challenge it's a social one as well as I'm sure others witnesses will be testifying this morning and there's no easy solution and it's likely to get much worse before it gets much better yet we have to continue to do what we can we need to get the tools and the processes in the hands of individuals rather than relying completely on the government or on social media platforms to police content if individuals can perform a sniff test and the media smells of misuse they should have ways to verify it or prove or easily reported the same tool should be available to the press to social media sites to anyone who shares and uses this content because the truth of the matter is the people that share this stuff are part of the problem even though they don't know it we need to continue to work towards being able to apply automated detection and filtering at scale it's not sufficient to only analyze question content after the fact we need to be able to apply detection at the front end of the distribution pipeline and even if we don't take down and prevent manipulated media from appearing we should provide appropriate warning labels that suggest that this is not real or not authentic or not what is purported to be and that's independent of whether this is done and the decisions are made by humans machines or a combination and we need to continue to put pressure on social media to realize that the way that their platforms are being misused is unacceptable they must do all they can to address today's issues and not allow things to get worse let there be no question that this is a race but better manipulators get the better detectors need to be and there's certainly orders of magnitude more manipulators than there are detectors it's also a race that we may never end it may never be one but no one where but it is one where we must close the gap and continue to make it less attractive financially socially politically to propagate false information like spam and malware it is easy and it's always a problem and it may be the case that we can level the playing field when the metaphor program was conceived at DARPA one thing that kept me up at night was the concern that someday our adversaries would be able to create entire events with minimal effort these events might include images of scenes from different angles video content that appears from different devices and text that's delivered through various medium providing overwhelming amount of evidence that an event has occurred and this could lead to social unrest or retaliation before it gets countered if the past five years or any indication that some day is not very far in the future thank you Thank You professor citron Thank You chairman chef ranking member Nunez and the committee for having me here today to talk about the phenomenon of deep fakes what love the risks that they pose and what law can and should do about it so I'm a professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law and there are there are a few phenomenon that come together that make deep fakes particularly troubling when they're provocative and destructive the first is that we know that as human beings we the video and audio is so visceral we tend to believe what our eyes and ears are telling us and we also tend to believe and tend to share information that confirms our biases and it's particularly true when that information is novel and negative so the more salacious we're more willing to pass it on and we're seeing deep fakes or we'll see them in social networks that are ad driven so the entire enterprise is to have us click and share right so when we bring all these things together the provocative deep ache the salacious will be spread virally so so let me describe there are so many harms that my co-author Bobby Chesney I write have written about but I'm gonna focus on some of the more concrete ones and what law can and should do about it so there are concrete harms in the here and the now and especially for individuals so Ronna ayob is an investigative journalist in india who writes about government corruption and the persecution of religious minorities and she has long used to getting death threats and rape threats for her it's sort of par for the course but she she wrote a provocative piece in April 2018 and what followed was posters circulator of the Internet deep fake sex videos of Rana so her face was morphed into pornography and that first day it goes viral it's it's on every social media site whatsapp it's on as she explained to me millions of phones in India and the next day sir paired with the deep fake sex video of Rana was rape threats her home address and the suggestion that she was available for sex now the fallout was significant she had to basically go offline she couldn't work her sense of safety and security was shaken it upended her life and she had to withdraw from online platforms for several months right so that the economic and the social and psychological harm is profound and it's true that in my work on cyber stalking the phenomenon is going to be increasingly felt by women and minorities and for people from marginalized communities now of course it's not just individuals we can imagine the deep fake about sort of the night before an IPO time just right with the CEO saying something that he never said or did basically admitting to that the company was insolvent right and so the deep fake if the night before the EPO could upend the the IPO right the the market will respond far far faster and we can debunk it so the question is and we can imagine all sets of an amiss tur Watson I've talked about I'm gonna let him take some of the national security concerns like elections tipping of an election uh pending public safety but the next question is what do we do about it and and I feel like our panel is gonna be in heated agreement that there's no silver bullet right that we need a combination of law markets and really societal resilience to get through this but law has a modest role to play there are civil claims that victims of targeted individuals can bring they can sue for defamation intentional infliction of emotional distress false light of privacy tort but the hardest thing is that it's incredibly expensive to sue and criminal law offers too few levers for us to push at the state level there are a handful of criminal defamation laws and an impersonation laws and at the federal level there is an impersonation of a government official statute but it's really inapt for the sets of problems that we face today and so Professor Mary Anne Frank's and I are amidst writing a model statute that we might deploy one that is narrowly tailored that would address faul false impersonations that would capture some of the harm here but of course there are practical hurdles for any legal solution you have to be able to find the defendant just so prosecute them and and you've got to have jurisdiction over them and so and the platform's the intermediaries our digital gatekeepers are immune from liability so we can't use a legal incentive of liability to get them on the case so I see my time is running out I look forward to your questions and thank you thank you very much mr. Watts chairman chief ranking member Nunez members of the committee thanks for having me here today all advanced nations recognize the power of artificial intelligence to revolutionize economies and empower militaries but those countries of them with the most advanced AI capabilities and unlimited access to large data troves will gain enormous advantages in information warfare AI provides purveyors of disinformation the ability to rapidly recon American social media audiences to identify psychological vulnerabilities and to create modified content and digital forgeries advancing false narratives against Americans and American interest historically each advancement media from text to speech to video to virtual reality more deeply engages information consumers enriching the context of experiences and shaping a user's reality the falsification of audio and video allows manipulators to dupe audience members and highly convincing ways provoking emotional responses that can lead to widespread mistrust and in times physical motive mobilizations false video and audio once consumed and believed can be extremely difficult to refute encounter moving forward I'd estimate Russia as an enduring purveyor of disinformation is we'll continue to pursue the acquisition of synthetic media capabilities employed the outlets the outputs against its adversaries around the world I suspect we'll be joined and outpaced potentially by China China's artificial intelligence capabilities rival the US are powered by enormous data to rose to include vast amounts of information stolen from the US and the country has already shown a propensity to employ synthetic media and television broadcast journalism these two country along with other authoritarian adversaries and the proxies will likely use deep fakes as part of disinformation campaigns seeking to discredit domestic dissidents and foreign detractors and cite fear and promote conflict inside western-style democracies and three distort the reality of American audiences and the audiences of America's allies deep fake proliferation presents to clear dangers over the long term deliberate development of false synthetic media will target US officials institutions and democratic processes with an enduring goal of subverting democracy demoralizing the American to and demoralizing the American constituency in the near and short-term circulation of deep fakes may incite physical mobilizations under false pretenses initiating public safety crises and sparking the outbreak of violence the recent spate of false conspiracies proliferating via whatsapp in India offer a relevant example of how bogus messages and media can fuel pilots the spread of deep fake capabilities will only increase in the frequency and intensity of these violent outbreaks will continue US diplomats and military personnel deployed overseas will be prime targets for deep fake disinformation conspiracies planted by adversaries US interests in the developing world where consumption has jumped from analog in-person conversations to social media sharing lacking any form of verification filter will likely be threatened by bogus synthetic media campaigns three examples would be mobilization at the US Embassy in Cairo the consulate in Benghazi and rumors of protests Incirlik airbase had they been accompanied with fake audio or video content could have been far more damaging in terms of that I'd also point to a story just out hours ago from The Associated Press which shows the use of a synthetic picture for s what appears to be espionage purposes on LinkedIn essentially a honeypot an attack recent public discussions of deep fake employment heavily focused on foreign adversaries but the greatest threat of inauthentic contact proliferation may come not from abroad but from a home and not from nations to dates but from the private sector thus far I've focused on authoritarian nation-states I brought a chart here today but a range of advanced persistent manipulators will use their vast resources develop and acquire deep fakes that's needed in pursuit of their goals recent examples of dissing firm and misinformation suggests it could be oligarchs corporations political action groups Public Relation firms and activists with significant financial support that will seek out these media capabilities and amplify deep fakes in international or domestic context the net effect will be the same degradation of democratic institutions elected officials lowered faith and electoral processes we can trust in social media platforms and potentially sporadic violence by individuals and groups immobilized under false pretenses I have several recommendations but I'll only hit a couple here in the oral remarks first Congress should implement legislation prohibiting US officials elected representatives and agencies from creating and distributing false and manipulated content the US government must always be the purveyor of facts and truth to its consistent constituents assuring the effective administration of democracy be a productive policy today from a shared basis of reality second policymakers should work jointly with social media companies to develop standards for content accountability third the US government should partner with private sector to implement digital verification signatures designating the date time and physical or origination of content fourth social media companies should enhance their labeling of synthetic content across platforms and work as an industry to codify how and when manipulated or fake content should be appropriate marked not often synthetic media is nefarious in nature but information and consumers should be able to determine the source of the information and whether it's authentic depiction of people and events fifth and what I think is the most pressing right now is the US government from a national security perspective should maintain intelligence on adversaries capabilities if deploying deep fake content or the proxies they employ to conduct such information the department's of Defense and state should immediately develop response plans for deep fake smear campaigns and deep fake inspired violent mobilizations overseas in an attempt to mitigate harm to US personnel and interest and the last I I echo my fellow panelists is public awareness of deep fakes and its signatures will greatly assist and tamping down attempts to subvert US democracy and incite violence I would like to see us help the public make better decisions about the content that they're consuming and how to judge that content thank you thank you all will now proceed with questions I recognize myself for five minutes two questions one for professor citron and one for mr. Watts professor how broad is the immunity that the social media platforms enjoy and is it time to do away with that immunity so that the platformers are required to maintain a certain standard of care it seems to me not very practical to think about bringing people to justice who are halfway around the world or the difficulties of attribution or the fact that given that the cheap cost of this technology now just how many people can employ it is it time to take that step was it appropriate for one social media company to leave up the Pelosi video even labeling in a certain way and mr. Watts what's a proportionate response should the Russians start to dump deep fakes release a deep fake of Joe Biden to try to diminish his candidacy what should the u.s. response be should it be a cyber response not not a tit-for-tat in the sense of doing a deep fake of Putin but but rather some cyber reaction or our sanctions a better response how do we deter this kind of foreign meddling realizing that that is only going to be one part of the problem a professor so I'm gonna start with how broad the immunity is and then that it is time for us to amend section 230 of the decency act so under law passed in 1996 the Communications Decency Act there was it's largely was an anti porn provision I may be through we can imagine the internet with no porn that was the objective of the Communications Decency Act and most of that law struck down but what remains is a provision that's good it's called Good Samaritan blocking and filtering of offensive content and it's been interpreted really broadly to say that if you under filter content if you don't engage in any self monitoring off at all even if you encourage abuse but you're immune from liability for user-generated content so that means that revenge porn operators can gleefully say that they're immune from liability while encouraging people to post ex their exes nude photos and they're right they are immune from liability because they are not generating co-creating the content so the question is in a world soon here we are 25 years later the Internet we've got dominant players it's not the internet is not in its infancy and is it time to reassess it and I think the answer is yes that we should condition the immunity it shouldn't be a free pass and it should be conditioned on reasonable content moderation practices been witness and I have written sort of a sample statute that you could adopt if you so chose that would condition the immunity unreasonable content practices then the question of course is well in any given case are our platforms making the right choices and under an approach that would have us look to the reasonableness of content practices we would look at the platform's total its its approach generally speaking to content moderation not any given decision with content so let's take the Pelosi video I think the answer is it should have been taken down we should have a default rule platform should have a default role that if we're gonna have impersonations or manipulation that do not reflect what we've done or said then platforms should once they figure it out take it down the technology is such a we can't detect it yet right we can't automatically filter and block but once we have figured it out we already are in a place where the public has deep distrust of the institutions at the heart of our democracy and if have an audience primed to believe things like manipulated video of lawmakers and I would hate to see you know the deep fake where a prominent lawmaker Sene purported to show seen taking a bribe that you never took right and I hope that platforms come to see themselves if we can't require them to have legal liability that they come to see themselves as the purveyors of responsibly of facilitating just discourse online and their importance to democracy Thank You mr. watt yeah I'd like to start off with just a basic principle of information warfare and so RH Knapp who is a professor who essentially studied wartime rumors his quote was once rumors are current they have a way of carrying the public public with them the more rumors told the greater its plausibility and he wrote that in 1944 I think that's still the essential thing it comes down who's there first and who's there the most and that's the danger of social media computational propaganda with this AI in terms of how we deal with this there's several parts one is we have to have a plan and it's a multi-part plan and the other part is we have to respond quickly this has not been the tradition of our government for example in Iraq when there would be fake al Qaeda propaganda put out to try and inspire people to show up places we had Rapid Response Teams that would show up with video with audio that would shoot footage from there to show this is not true this has been disproven that's a great example about if this starts to get leaked out what is our plan right now the US government for any government official government agency should immediately offer a counter based on fact in terms of what's actually going on this happened in the summer of 2016 at Incirlik airbase there was Russian state sponsored propaganda put out about a potential coup maybe the base was surrounded maybe there's a protest we should be able to turn on the cameras at that airbase immediately and say this this is not happening the faster we do that the less chance people see at first less chance that people see of me and see it often and believe it the second part is I think it comes down to the political parties well I'm Republican and Democrat if they have these smears coming through they should be able to rapidly refute that and put out a basis of truth this candidate or candidates what we're not there but that Binion's partnership also with the social media companies in terms of this I actually would not go as far as every piece of synthetic video that gets loaded up on a social media platform needs to come down I'm glad you brought up former Vice President Biden one of the classic articles about former Vice President Biden comes from the onion and it was that he was waxing his Camaro in the driveway of the White House it was a comedy bit and it had manipulated photos manipulated content on it if we went to that extreme we would have a country where everything that's ever been changed or modified for any reason would would have to be policed and we'd be asking a private sexual company to police that so I would instead offer a different system which is triage which is social media companies how do they accurately label content as authentic or not the danger with social media is the source is not necessarily there we saw that in 2016 we see that today so they should be able to refer back to whatever the base source is quickly how do you do that they should be able to triage the three areas which I would suggest that they immediately triage in is if they see something spiking in terms of morality they should immediately put that into a queue and have it done for human review linked to fact checkers down rate it not let it go into news feeds and help the mainstream media also understand what is manipulated content that's the jump that we're we're most concerned about the other part is outbreaks are potential outbreaks of violence and public safety and then anything related to elected officials or public you know institutions should immediately be flagged and pulled down and checked and then a context be given to it I see it as the public needs to be given a context that we're not really suppressing all freedom of speech all development of this context because there are legitimate reasons that we might want to use synthetic media for entertainment comedy all sorts of visualizations that are out there I go to mr. Nunez but at some point I love to follow up and see what a proportionate response would be to a foreign adversary that deploys this guy I can actually if you give me 20 seconds I can tell you what it would be which is refuting number one number two I think offensive cyber is in place and I like what the NSA is actually done in 2018 and then number three more more aggressive responses in terms of sanctions I like sanctions around troll farms and these cutouts where this content comes from Thank You mr. thank you so how do you put in filters to these tech oligarch companies there's only a few of them you know who they are that doesn't it's not developed by partisan left-wing like it is now where most of the time it's conservatives who get banned and not and not Democrats like I'd close to the Pelosi video was taken down that's fine I don't have a problem with that but I can tell you there's videos up of Republicans that go on and on and on so it's all in who's building the filter right are you asking some well you were the one that was talking about filters so no I and what I was suggesting is that it would be impossible to ex-ante filter deep fake content we really can't detect it as far as the state of the art goes now nor do I think in the arms race will be will be be able to really filter it and what I was saying is that for something like a video where it's clearly a doctored and an impersonation not satire not parody there are wonderful uses for defects that are art historical sort of rejuvenating for people to create them about themselves so I'm not suggesting all deep fakes but rather oh and I'm not but I think I mostly agree with you other than I just don't know how you I think the challenge here is how do you implement it right once you've been and these are really hard problems of content moderation I've worked with companies for about 10 years now in particular on the issue of non-consensual pornography threats and stalking and that's such a contextual question and so you can't proactively filter but when it's reported the question is that when we see videos going viral there's a way in which we company should react and react responsibly and absolutely should be bipartisan there shouldn't be ideology that drives the question but rather is this a misrepresentation in a defamatory way right that we would say it's a falsehood that is harmful to reputation an impersonation then we should take it down so I think the that is the default I'm imagining for social media companies but it would be ex post but it's a challenge I mean you talked about the 96 law that needs to be changed and I think it has to be one way or another right either they have to truly be an open public square which which then it's very difficult to filter because then whoever's developing the filter puts their own bias into the filter but actually 1996 that bill it did not imagine an open public square where private companies couldn't filter the opposite it was designed to encourage self monitoring and to provide an immunity in exchange for Good Samaritan filtering and blocking of offensive content so the entire premise of section 230 is to encourage and so provide an immunity so that there was filtering and blocking because Congress knew will be too hard for Congress or the FTC to get ahead of all this themselves right and that was in 96 imagine now the scale that we face I think we should preserve the immunity but condition it on reasonable content moderation practices so that there are some sites that literally traffic and abuse that encourage illegality and they should not enjoy immunity from liability right but that's and we're back to where we started I mean that this is the challenge right so how do we draft legislation that would yep able that happy to tell you how to do it right so section 230 C 1 now says no speaker or publisher or no online service shall be treated as a speaker or publisher of centrally of someone else's content what we can do is change section 230 C 1 to say that no online service that engages in reasonable content moderation practices shall be treated as the speaker or publisher of somebody else's content so we can change section 230 with some imagination it depends on what's the definition of reasonable and that's what law does really well right so every time I hear a lawyer say we can't figure out what's reasonable it's called tort law right negligence is built on the foundation of reasonableness you know so often law moves in a pendulum right we often start with no liability because we really want to protect businesses and we should and we experiment and we realize that's a lot of harm and then we often overreact and impose strict liability and then we get somewhere in the middle right where that's where negligence lives reasonable practices and we have industries there's content moderation has been going on for the past ten years and I've been advising Twitter and Facebook all of that time there is meaningful reasonable practices that are emerging and have emerged in the last 10 years so we have a guide it's not as if this is a new issue in 2019 so we can come up with reasonable practices thank you mr. Himes Thank You mr. chairman dr. Dorman I want to get a quick sense from you of what the status quo is with respect to our ability to detect and where that race is but but before I do that I just want to highlight something that I think is actually very immediate and intense interest to the intelligence community mr. Watts you said something which is something's happening on a base somewhere we can just turn on the cameras I'm not sure that's right right because if you can create a deep fake there's no reason why you can't create a deep fake from that camera to the screen right so in other words the point I'm trying to make is our intelligence community obviously relies on things like full motion video and photographs and that sort of thing one of the threats here is not just the threats that we might be made to look silly on YouTube but that our intelligence community using its own assets might not be able to tell fact from fiction is that correct when you say let's just turn on the cameras I'm not sure that's enough well I think it needs to be one of my other recommendation was digital verification which there's these folks will know better because they're more technically sound than I am on this but digital verification for date time and location of actual content to include real I'm content there's already some blockchain registry solutions that are being developed that is essential part of that would be then if you as the US government turn on your cameras it can be verified by news agencies reporters we could have it on c-span we could use in a lot of different ways but we have to make sure that we have the ability to verify that our content is real so if that sort of an impersonation is done we can do it quickly and people will know which one to sort through III will defer to them in terms of technical but that some of this is already being developed it's not quite there yet but I would want that accompanied with it great thank you that actually leads into my question for dr. Dorman dr. maura I understand there's no silver bullet here this is gonna be a cat-and-mouse game take a minute or two and just tell us where are we in that cat or mouse game should we expect to have undetectable deep fakes out there within a year two years five years ten years what where are we today and how imminent a challenge is this I think there is the the risk of having an undetectable content that gets that gets modulated on share it online right now things like compression if you have a very low resolution version of a video the attribution can be destroyed the camera fingerprint where this content came from can be destroyed a lot of the trace evidence could be destroyed with very simple types of manipulation on top of the on the top of the deep fake process or any any type of manipulation the challenge that we have though is that we do have point solutions for a lot of these components and bringing through them together in a useful way and as I said getting them in the hands of everyone throughout the pipeline imagine if Facebook or YouTube or any of these other companies could have this up front and when the humans reviewers Facebook I think just reported they've hired 30,000 people to review content could have this ahead of time rather than saying okay I have a question video or a questioned piece of audio or something that I need to review now let me go and run this algorithm on it or this set of algorithms do that upfront so they have a report associated with a particular image or video and then if there's questions to put that warning up there I think the public doesn't know enough about what's possible to demand that if somebody knows something the truth of the matter is when this stuff gets shared it gets created once and when it gets shared it gets shared across different platforms it gets shared by different people with different media but the truth of the matter is that signature for that particular piece of video that piece of audio is there and so there are tools that the that the the social media companies could use to link those together and make a decision and then share it with everyone the same way as we do with with malware for example cyber issues we've gotten to the point where it's now you know we're protecting our front door and we need to protect our front door from images and video as well thank you doctor I'm professor citron I don't have time to cover this topic but I just want to express myself on this the theme of this hearing is how scary deep fakes are but I got to tell you one of the more scary things I've heard this morning is your statement that the Pelosi video should have been taken down there should be this I don't have a lot of time sadly there won't be a moment I think for you to answer but I do want to have this conversation because as awful as I think we all thought that Pelosi video was there's got to be a difference if the Russians put that up which is one thing versus if Mad Magazine does that as a satire as you know better than me we don't have a lot of protections as public figures with respect to defamation and some of the language we've used here today makes me worry about First Amendment equities free expression centuries long tradition of satirizing people like us who richly deserve being satirized so anyway I'm expounding here I simply just wanted to put that on the record and hope that we have an opportunity this morning to hear more about where that boundary lies on how we can protect a long tradition of free expression with that I yield back dr. wernstrom Thank You mr. chairman thank you all for being here I think boy we've come a long way I remember Chevy Chase playing Gerald Ford on Saturday Night Live and he didn't even try to pretend to look like Gerald Ford and then we see Forrest Gump which was you know a wonderful movie right it was entertainment and I remember sitting there thinking how did they do that you know the problem we have I've always said that of everything bad there's a chance to do something good but out of everything good there's obviously a chance for people to do something bad and and I think that you know we see that and the way it sounds with where we're headed it's like we're all living in the Truman Show or something like that you know we've got to be careful about that but I think about you know in that vein of out of something good something bad can happen I'm sure the the Wright brothers when they learned to fly didn't think and maybe we can fly this into a building someday and kill people right but that's what happens in this world unfortunately but as a result of that 9/11 for example it takes a lot longer to get on a plane and for good reason and I think that you know where we need to be headed might be and I want your opinions on it obviously we've got to slow this down you know before something just hits it and I think you're talking about this or that's the triage idea and maybe we label maybe unfortunately we have to tell people before they see something this is satire it's not real and you have to in some way verify which is kind of pathetic but at the same time that maybe what we have to do slow it down triage it this is not verified this is satire and and maybe on a global scale when it comes to punitive measures to people that are doing things nefarious maybe we have to have international extradition laws because when something comes from from some other country maybe even a friendly country the defames and hurts someone here maybe we both agree amongst those nations that will extradite those people and they can be punished in your country for what they did to one of your citizens so I'd love your opinion on those a the triage labeling and extradition whoever wants to take it first yeah I think that's absolutely right I mean one of the reasons that these types of manipulated images and video gained traction is because it's almost instantaneous that they can be shared they can be shared around the world they can be shared across platforms you can see something on one platform and there's a button there to post it to another there's an old adage that says that a Ally can go halfway around the world before the truth can get it shoes on and and that's and that and that's true I you know personally I don't see any reason why you know broadcast news does it with with live types of you know they have a delay seven second delay or 15-second delay there's no reason why things have to be instantaneous we should give our social media should instill these types of things to delay so that they can get these types of things online they get they can decide whether they should label it we still need to put the pressure on for those types of things but you know they've there's there's a seriousness issue there's from satire all the way up through you know child pornography we've done it for child pornography we've done it for human trafficking they're serious about those things this is another area that's a little bit more in the middle but I think they can make the same effort in these areas to do that type of triage yeah if you say what you're about to see is satire and has been modified so I think one thing worth stressing is we will continue to be surprised by technological progress in this domain because the law of a lot of this stuff is all of these people think they're the Wright brothers and you know they they feel that and they're all busily creating stuff and they have figuring out the second-order effects of what they build is difficult so I think that we do need to build infrastructure so that you have some third-party measuring the progression of these technologies so you can ant I hate the other things in expectation and the labeling I think is incredibly important and there are times in which that is the most that's the perfect right you know rather than second best that where we should err on the side of inclusion and label it as synthetic and be so required to label it and it's true that there are some instances though where we say we're labeling is just not good enough right that it is defamatory right that people will believe the live there's really no counter speech to some falsehoods right some impersonations if we get a chance I'd love to hear back from you on the notion of extradition laws and other punitive measures thank you I yield back my time is that missile Thank You mr. chairman so dr. Dorman if did you you didn't really answer my colleagues question about how far away are we from actually being able to detect deep Thanks so where I know that DARPA you were working on that where are we either commercially or or by government or researchers to you know technologically able to detect deep Thanks so deep fakes is typically referred to as a you know particular technology that there's certain software out there for doing that it's not a general concept so the deep fakes was actually the the initial paper that was was published that gave rise to this technology came after the start of the of the metaphor program and we did adapt to start looking at those things there are points solutions out there today that deep fakes coming from these particular software's can be detected and again do we have the soft technology to actually be able to digitally verify the videos of photographs etc the problem is doing it in scale the problem is doing it at scale if you give me a particular video I can with a with high confidence I can tell you whether this is a a fake video and I can also come back and say okay here are the video here are the images that went into it because typically it's so long does that take is that a matter of an hour 30 minutes with the right hardware and things you know this it can be done with a with a constant delay so yes 15 minutes 20 minutes in advance of the 2020 elections what can campaigns political parties candidates do to prepare for the possibility of deep fake content mr. Watts professor century so one thing I think even here on Capitol Hill and with political parties is urge the social media industry to work together to create unified standards so part of the problem with all of these incidents is if you're a manipulator domestic or international and you're making deep fakes you're going to go to whatever platform allows you to post anything from inauthentic accounts so if they can't share across accounts it's like a cancer they go to wherever the weak point is and it spreads throughout the system to the point where it really can't be policed even if Facebook or Google or Twitter do a good job so I think one thing is really pressuring the social media industry to work together and that goes for extremism disinformation political smear campaigns all things across what is the standard for policing and then I think the other thing is having rapid responses to deal with this stuff any sort of lag as much as defense is not the best way any sort of lag in terms of a response just allows that conspiracy to grow so the quicker you get out on it then mainstream media outlets can also work to help refute other politicians other elected officials can help you do that refutation professor what would you say suggests that political parties and a candidate's doing I think candidate should have clear policies about deep fakes and a commitment not to use them not to spread them and then also to have relationships established early on relationships with social media companies so that when a candidate can say you know what I wasn't there I didn't doing or saying that at that particular time you have immediate entree to folks at the content moderation you know whoever it is at Facebook whoever it is at Twitter Microsoft whoever it is right that they have immediate sort of rapid response teams what what how do we even begin to tackle this sort of liar dividend right now I love that in which my phrasing in which politicians oh may be recorded committing an illegal act can deny the truth by claiming that the recording is a deep fake what do you suggest we do about that conundrum Oh congressman but I love this that twice we've gotten some play right for the liars dividend which Bobby Chesney and I conceived in our California Law Review piece and what most worries us is that sort of in a environment of pervasive deep fakes where you know we've acculturated people not to believe their eyes and ears that right the wrong door can seize on the fact that there isn't that a genuine take a genuine recording of miss Jeff and say that's not me right that's a deep fake and I think so part of our so I have a two-fold answer part of it is education right part of our robust education that we have to have with the public is telling them about the phenomenon of the liars dividend right so it's not that it's not that we shouldn't educate people you know so often the response to Bobby and I as well do we give up right the liars dividend do we stop educating and our response is absolutely not that it must be a robust part of the learning curve is to say look we know that wrongdoers are gonna seize on the deep fake phenomena to escape reality and we can't let them do that either and so we have to somewhere get in the middle from completely believing everything our eyes and ears tell us to being skeptical without being nihilistic right because we do have a marketplace of ideas that's potentially functioning but when what we are saying is not what we're saying we we don't want to get into that space where we have a non-functioning marketplace of ideas thank you Thank You mr. Stewart Thank You chairman and to the witnesses thank you for being here it's been a helpful panel although I have to say that I'm a little bit concerned with some of your suggestions I think although in an ideal world they would be helpful in the real world we live in I'm afraid some of them are nearly impossible to implement and some of them have some troubling aspects in themselves in the sense that it's kinda like fact-checkers who aren't really fact-checkers they insert their opinion and this is just this reality that a challenge we have before us sitting on the Intel committee I'm often asked you know and just conversations and casual discussions you know what do I think is the greatest threat facing the world and a couple years ago answered that and I said without thinking I nearly nearly blurted it out I said I think it's that no one knows what is real anymore and as I was driving home that evening I started thinking on that and I realized that's true I think that is the greatest threat facing our nation or where people just don't accept basic truths and basic falsehoods any longer partly because of their own interests or partly because they just don't understand what is really true and it's not just defaced by the way our tea television for example is extraordinarily good at propaganda that many people just think is perfectly legitimate and perfectly real the fake news the term that we've all unfortunately have become very familiar with their manipulation as mr. Himes has indicated and I we can't discuss here but manipulation of intelligence products is extraordinarily troubling to me and we live in a world where black is white and white is black and I could show you evidence that white is black and a lot of people would believe me that white is black and and I just think that for us to lose that and and by the way I think we can control governments I think we can control to a certain extent legitimate businesses but we can't control everyone and this is going to be so pervasive and so available that virtually anyone could create this and it's easy to control the US government say well you can't create it you can't use it for political manipulations or whatever it might be but you can't control the other six billion people on the earth and and that is my my concern just the pure volume of it it's like trying to monitor every bumblebee that's flying around America and and last thing and then I'll get to my questions it goes both ways and this is this is my concern as well we could create the impression that a lie is real but we could also say that something is real a lie you know to use some of your examples a politician caught in a bribe which by the way politicians do much worse things than that but so 1970s but let's go at that example a politician's is caught in a bribe and it could be actually true and he would then say no no it's just a deep fake you know that's not real and so you lose you lose the credibility in both ways which now brings me to my question the first is and I'll ask them both and get you to respond with the potential for so much harm should we should we have the algorithms that create deep fakes should but should they be open source and and if that if the answer is no we've got to do that right now we can't wait for two or three years to do that because they'll already be pervasive throughout the world and the second question is and this penned this is almost rhetorical but I would love your answer as their thoughts on this how do we prepare people to live in a world of deception how do we prepare people to live in a world where they just generally may not know what's real or not and anyone who would jump on those two should should the algorithms be open-source or should we control yeah I'll address the first one we made a conscious decision to make the metaphor program open you'll see even a week and a half from now in Long Beach at the computer vision pattern-recognition conference there'll be a a workshop there that's that's dealing with this even though there's potential for adversaries learning from these things they're gonna learn anyway we need to get this type of stuff out there we need to get it into the hands of of users there are companies out there that are starting to take this these types of things so I absolutely think that these types of things need to be open-source there's nothing it's the same technology that's been being used in terms of deep learning to create this type of content I just understand you're saying that you should be open-source primarily because they'll get access to it anyway is that is that the essence of your response well and and and people need to be able to use it the more we can use it to educate the community educate people give people the tools so that they can make the choices for themselves that's alright I'll accept that although with some hesitation but primarily the first part of the answer and that is I think they'd get it anyway what about eating suggestions I'm sorry on how we prepare people to live in a world that just is so steeped in deception I'm sure you've thought through that and we have ten seconds to answer so when justice Oliver Wendell Holmes came up with the notion of the marketplace of ideas he was a cynic he wasn't suggesting that that truth would always out and he worried about humanity but the broader endeavor is at the foundation of our democracy is that we can have a set of accepted truths so we can have real meaningful policy conversations we can't give up on the project well I agree with you and that's our hope but as I said earlier that foundation of accepted truths is very shaky at this moment thank you chairman Thank You mr. Carson thank you chairmanship in an era with prevailing distrust of the journalists and media do deep fakes risk aggravating this kind of distrust so prior to working in AI I was a professional journalist for seven or eight years and finished up working at Bloomberg in Businessweek so I speak from some experience yes I think that misses a very very very severe and potentially under-covered fret because when you write a story but people don't like they try and attack you as V offer of it or they try and attack the integrity of the institution and this makes it trivial to do that and to produce stuff that can convince people that you you were not being factually accurate so yes not only do we see the journalists themselves like miss Ayub being attacked but what I think what is so corrosive is in the notion that the media is gonna sit on real evidence for fear that it's a fake and we've certainly already seen you know sort of stings with media organizations and now they've got to be wary of stings with deep fakes that are really tough to debunk without some so legwork right with journalistic effort and so the corrosive effort but Bobby and I H as Nina I call trust decay affects not only politicians and our view of civic and political institutions right but everything right and and centrally so journalism in the media if I could just add to that over time if an information consumer does not know what to believe they can't tell fact from fiction then they will either believe everything or they will believe nothing at all if they believe nothing at all it leads to long-term apathy and that is destructive for the United States I I think you could look to Russia as an example of what is happening internally to the Russian people and how the Russian government has used the the fire firehose of falsehoods approach that if you can't believe anything you just give up and surrender the consequences for democracy our political participation long-term apathy disappointment and officials that anything can be achieved not wanting to show up and do things like register or for the draft or show up as an all-volunteer force I would tell you that would be one I would look at over the next 10 to 15 years so I think that's the long-term corrosive effect and if you look at Russia's long term doctrine of subversion that's what they're after they just are much more patient than we are and willing to wait decades for it to come to fruition in addition to that so will technology solutions for authentication be available for even sufficient amounts for journalists or media organizations or fact checkers to keep up with even validating a piece of media before reporting on it like chairmanship no crowd surfing at South by Southwest or premiering his own Netflix special of how can you verify those things as journalists I think I think it's important to have these these tools out there for them it's it's where we are not at the the case now as I said we have point solutions we don't have a general solution we don't have a gatekeeper that can be automated completely this is a cat-and-mouse game as things get better for our you know being able to deceive visually they're gonna get better and they're gonna move on to covering up their their trace evidence but I think the tools can be put in the hands and they should be we had situations where there are embedded reporters where you know somebody comes up to them with something on a cell phone and shows an atrocity and you know they need those tools they'd have to know whether to report on that or not you know so these manipulations but even before the automated piece of deep fakes people were doing these types of things and it's a major concern it could even evolve into some kind of new scam where you have someone with a piece of information selling it to TMZ or even a credible so-called credible media outlet you know scamming for $50,000 and the pieces like fake if I could add one dimension to this though is that how lucky we are to have in a very engaged public in terms of actually rebutting things that are false and challenging them you know it's not just journalists that are doing it's also the public that will challenge back-and-forth one of the dangers that we don't think about though is in information environments where authoritarians control and eliminate all rebuttals that can have a very significant backlash to us which is why I would like to see widespread proliferation of authentication not just for here in the United States but on the other side of the world where a regime controls all the information flow and can suppress reality web stating fact-checking is expensive and time intensive and the number of news organizations on the planet who are doing well in economic terms is it's sort of dwindling over time and so I think that if we were to go down this path you need to find a way to fund that because vague offer and volition because of the economics they're not going to naturally adopt this stuff other than a few small trusted institutions so it becomes incredibly difficult to remain a credible news source when you're having to pay to fact-check constantly yes ok thank you chairman I yield back mr. Crawford Thank You mr. chairman we've come a long way since milli vanilli m we just in the time that we've been here I pulled up a videos recently posted two British artists teamed with an Israeli company if I get the name right here can EA I don't know if you're familiar with them they created a video of Mark Zuckerberg saying among other things he could control the future and they posted that on Facebook specifically to challenge Facebook and then Zuckerberg has responded by saying he's not going to take that down I just wonder if y'all could comment on that what do you think this is about and do you think it's a wise decision for Zuckerberg to not take it down given what we've talked about and I'll start with You professor citron so I think that's a perfect example where based given the context that's satire and parody that is really healthy for conversation and there are all of these questions are hard right of course our default presumption as we approach speech online is from a First Amendment perspective which is we generally we want to keep government out of calling balls and strikes when it comes to ideas in the marketplace but private companies can make those kinds of choices they have an incredible amount of power they also have free without no any liability and I think they made the right choice to keep up the it was a conversation about essentially the cheap fake of Nancy Pelosi it seems to be a conversation about the choices that they made and what does that mean for a society so it was incredibly productive I think it seems correct in this instance but all of these companies are kind of groping in the dark when it comes to what policies they need overall because it's a really really really hard problem and so I think what would be helpful is to have a way for them to share policies across multiple companies and to sort of seek standardization because these judgment calls are very qualitative in nature and they're going to become more numerous over time I would just add though that while that's a comparison right to what happened with a you know the congresswoman maybe being inebriated a video they were trying to essentially duplicate that this does to point out the idea of context right part of that video it spread for one purpose only which was to challenge this rule so we would sort of discuss in this forum but no one really believes Mark Zuckerberg can control the future because he surely wouldn't want to show here to testify or anywhere else or being the Quagmire's and how do you know that I'm trying to make a very serious point about context which is whenever virality spikes that's where the assessment I think needs to come in terms of triage and that assessment is when it goes into human curation so that human curation okay we see four thousand shares in ten minutes now we see sixteen thousand shares over 15 minutes that is when it would should go and then we look at labeling we look at context how do we inform the public so they make good decisions around it we had a parallel to this in the analog era I I was a kid would show up at newsstand and say aliens landed at area 51 I would ask a mother you know friends or family where does this come from they say oh that source is just putting out information for entertainment that didn't really happen we need to help the consumer make a better decision around that so I like it that Facebook has been consistent in terms of their enforcement and I'm also not going to say that they should never change what those terms are I think they're looking to here to Capitol Hill to figure out what is it that we want to be policed what do we want Europe what does Europe want to be police I think they would like to hear from legislators about what falls inside those parameters the one thing that I do really like that they're doing is in authentic account creation and in authentic content generation they are enforcing that and they've increased it and I think that's really really good in terms of how they've scaled that up it's not perfect but it's better let me ask you this is our is there a particular company or is a particular region or particular nation that is especially adept at this technology that is developing at a quicker rate or or whatever it's it's distributors along the lines you'd expect of prominent research centers in America and China and Europe so it's distributed wherever you have good AI technologists you have the capability to create this stuff which makes it very challenging at some point this will be available off-the-shelf though right folks at home and be able to access it as all technology it already is absolutely that's that's one of the big differences you know you used to have to go out by Photoshop or you know have some of these desktop editors now you know a high school student with a good computer and if they're a gamer they already have a good GPU card can download this can download data and train this type of thing overnight with software that's open and freely available so it's not something that you have to be an AI expert to run a novice can run these types of things thank you yield back mr. Quigley Thank You mr. chairman thank you for your participation following up on those points the themes here getting easier to do the quality is getting better getting harder to detect the examples we talked about as victims democracy elected officials corporations this horrible attack on a journalist but what about a small business with limited resources what about individuals who are victims of example you gave professor of revenge porn for example and in dr. you talked about the scale and widespread authentication what capabilities might exist in the as we go forward either on social media platforms law enforcement or for individuals themselves to deal with this detection issue well I you know I envision some time where you know there's a button on every social media piece or every time you get a even a text message with a video attached to it that you can hit goes off it gathers information not necessarily totally automated if it's been vetted by one of many other organizations if you can identify where it came from so that the individual can can make those decisions the problem is that a lot of these types of technologies exist in the labs in research in different organizations they're not shared and they're not implemented at scale so if I want to go out and test a picture there was a very interesting picture before it's a tornado up in Maryland a couple of weeks ago and looked surreal and I immediately thought oh that must have been somewhere else you know somewhere in the Midwest you know years ago so I did a search there's a reverse image search that you can do minute after you know doing some research I found that it indeed was real and it was it's practically in my backyard but not everybody has those types of capabilities nobody not everybody thinks to do that type of thing I know that I have relatives that you know just do this and and they see something and they want to share it and so I think the education piece and getting these tools at scale is what we need to we need to work towards the key is even with detection for the everyday person who has a deep fake sex video in the Google search of their name prominently featured and a platform refuses to take it down it is their CV so that even with meaning it's a part of what everyone sees about them and so it is incredibly destructive and the same is probably true for the small business can't afford if there is a deep fake that really casts us under their business model right they may not be able to have it removed even though it is false and and it's an impersonation and even if it's defamation we know that the law was really slowly they brought a defamation suit assuming they could find who the creator is so that's we're gonna have this we're in this liminal period where and it's can may last years where individuals will suffer and there's it's incredibly hard to talk to victims because they're so little that I can force anyone to do and and we're gonna see a lot of suffering and the issues that we just talked about they are you trying to tackle those with your model laws that you're talking about yeah so I am the vice-president of the cyber civil rights initiative and we have been working with law makers around the country both at the state level and the federal both in terms of non-consensual pornography and now to think about how we might really carefully and narrowly craft a law that would ban deep fakes or manufactured video that are essentially impersonations that amount to criminal defamation so I think we've got work ahead of us at CCRI and and laws around the country it could be tackled but it's gonna have a really modest impact because law moves slowly and when you're doing this you're talking to local and state law enforcement agencies yes so in my work on cyber stalking I wrote a book called hate crimes in cyberspace which was about the phenomenon of cyber stalking and how hard it is to teach local law enforcement both about the technology and the laws themselves you know they're great at street crimes but when you talk to them about online crimes even though they're offline components they say I don't really know where to begin I don't know how to get a warrant for an online service provider to get an IP address to go to the ISP so we do have some education I know congressman Clark has called for funding some training a lo of local at you know local law enforcement on the question of cyber stalking both as a technical matter and then as to law and I'd love to see that not only with regard to cyber stalking and threats but more broadly thank you all mr. hurt yes mister sorry Thank You chairman I'm gonna try to do something that's probably impossible in the next five minutes on touch on and get y'all's perspective on on four areas the ability to detect we've touched on mr. chairman you touched on authentication as a strategy for this how do we handle how do we develop a strategy in a narrow national security sense to counter disinformation and who should be doing that and then broadly education in my first question is probably to you mr. Clark and dr. Dorman can you talk to us about the ability to detect and the forensics like is their ability to do a pixel-by-pixel analysis a bit by bit analysis is there other areas of basic research that we should be focusing on in order for us to to help with an ability to detect well the approach that's being taken in the community is is one of a comprehensive view so yes there are pixel types of applications not necessarily pixel by pixel but the metadata that you get on an image you know what compression algorithms that were there you know that there are there are residue residual information left if you take an image you modify it and you recompress it so at the digital level that's where a majority of the work is being done and that's and how easy is that now and who should potentially be be doing that well the government is putting a lot of money into this piece as I said there's a lot more manipulators than there are detectors so I would hope that behind closed doors that the social media sites and and the you know the youtubes of the world are looking into this type of application I'm not sure is is the ability to understand the various metadata or even getting to a point where we can do pixel by pixel exploration in mass is that going to help us in a point where you can do you know real authentication so anytime you put a video up or a picture up there's a green check mark personally I don't like to use the word authentication because as we absolutely everything that goes up online is modified in some way whether it's cropped or you know there's a there's a color histogram distribution was just meant but not things well we like to use that that things have been modified but it's a scale so if there's the modification of intent if you put a flower in a picture next to someone that has a very different effect than if you replace somebody's face in a picture and so this discussion this attribution piece and the actual report that says this is exactly what was done was a big part of the metaphor program as well so so the closest you're gonna get is say all of these things happen to this image and therefore the user would have to be the one to make the decision on whether this is credible or not yes and even in an automated way if you are taking an image and you're the FBI and you're going to court even if you did change one pixel you lose the credibility but if you're a doing FBI and you're doing an investigation and you have a very compressed grainy surveillance video it still might give you information you believe it miss citron and then maybe mr. Watts you know disinformation is a subsection of covert action covert action and counter covert action is responsibility of the Central Intelligence Agency yet the Central Intelligence Agency because the National Security Act of forty-seven can't do this in from account covert action in the United States of America very hard to do it in English who should be how should we be looking at a government strategy to deal with disinformation especially in the context of national security or somebody else more appropriate is to start with that I think it's two parts I I would encourage the social media industry and the platform's to focus on methods who's doing deep baek's digital forgeries who's doing computational propaganda can we have a listing of those they're not always nefarious but then we know who the people are that are building the equipment this is essentially essentially the weapons that are being used and I would encourage the government then to focus on actors so this is in the case of the CIA overseas DHS in terms of protecting the homeland who are you know State Department which used to have the US Information Agency would be out there outing and overtly going after those actors that are doing the manipulation I feel like we are still after several years now really slow to do this and they're the only ones that can figure it out when I worked with social media teams and we spot actors that we believe are doing things we sometimes have to wait years for the government to go yes here's the Mullah report and it labels the internet research agency but that had already been out in the news so the more rapidly the government can do that the more the public can help the more the social media companies know what to take down because that attribution really only comes down to the US government they're the only ones the tools really they can do that thank you chairman I yield back mr. heck Thank You mr. chairman first of all professor citron I want to make sure that I understood correctly if something like happened to that reporter in India had happened in America did I understand correctly that that would not constitute a crime per se it might be understood as cyber stalking which is a crime and under federal and most states laws the problem is it was sort of like death by a thousand cuts and to constitute cyber stalking you need a course of conduct a persistent repetition by the same person so for the first time if it were the and what happens is it's like a cyber mob coming together so one person puts up the photo or screen shot another person puts up the home address yet another person puts up I'm available just all it says I'm available with a screen shot so the person who originated it under current law would likely not be subject to criminal prosecution right did I also understand you to say that even if it were it would have modest impact that is what I said was if we had criminal laws that combated the sort of deep fake phenomenon and really tailored to falsehoods impersonations that create cognizable harm I think law is really important it's not that it's it's modest and the overall impact because we need a partnership with technologists right I want to move on but I also cannot help but have this terrible flash of Dante's Inferno abandon hope all ye who enter here whose job should it be to label that that wasn't clear I kind of thought it might be the media platform companies I think will be the Creator that is that we could watch as we do in the campaign finance space where we say there are certain disclosure rules that we say if you're an if it's a political ad you have to own it it's so if it's a foreign originator how is it that we have any jurisdictional reach and we don't I mean that no boundaries right and so as a matter of practical fact even if it's created in America transmitted to a foreign person and then retransmitted we have no means of enforcement labeling in and of itself and that might be a remarks above about Dante's Inferno but look we've got social media platforms if they had some responsibility they may and if indeed and I'm pretty skeptical about whether we're gonna get there in the near future about the technology of detection but assuming that's possible then a reasonable practice could be a disclosure saying this is uh this is a fake so were you with it what you will we actually have as it were a comparable truth verification mechanism currently Snopes and yet a member of my family who shall go unnamed immediate family once posted how outrageous is was and how the Constitution ought to be amended because members of Congress can retire after one term immediate immediately collect full pension benefits every member of peers heard this have health care for free for life and their children go to college for free not one word not one letter of that assertion is true which could have easily been verified if they had gone to Snopes they didn't and even if they did in a political context the truth is the person who's perpetuating that may have a political agenda such that they also in a parallel fashion engage in ad hominem as or attacks against the reliability of Snopes they so see remarks above I don't have much time left but I really interested in mr. Himes getting at the issue of political speech and First Amendment you mentioned that you know we are protected against being impersonated but it's not clear to me how we square case law which has created a very high barrier and it's incredibly important to recognize but everything you've just described as legally is totally protected speech you know the United States has made clear in a case called United States versus Alvarez a plurality and occurrences of the court so that look we protect falsehoods that we're gonna ensure it enjoys First Amendment protection because as Justice Kennedy explained it reawakens the conscience it has us engaging counter speech that sort of recommit to citizenship but there are times as the Court made clear that when falsehoods create certain kinds of cognizable harm that we can and should regulate when that includes defamation even if public officials if said with actual malice that you know are you're reckless that's the truth of the matter asserted right so they're true threats incitement there there's 21 crimes made up of speech we can regulate certain words and images if it falls in one of those categories or if we can meet strict scrutiny so yes the presumption is that it's protected speech if it's a falsehood but falsehood that causes cognizable harm the court has explicitly said actually it's an entire Court has said that that is a space that we allow regulation thank you mr. Welch thank you very much you know in in this is very helpful there's different categories and we're all trying to get our arms around them there's the question of the First Amendment which mr. heck and mr. Himes were talking about there's the question of foreign interference and there's the question of economic harm reputational harm and the environment and we're all learning as we go on this but what I've heard you'd be describing is essentially the whole world of publishing is upside down it doesn't exist like it did prior to the internet so the question is whether we want to get back to some of the principles that applied free social media it's not like those principles necessarily have to be abandoned they have to be applied and they would apply in different ways for each of those different categories with so the I just want to ask each of you whether we should get back to the requirement of an editorial function in a reasonable standard of care by treating these platforms as publishers and I know miss Citroen you said yes I'd be interested in what the others see just yes or no on that so working with a number of people sort of in this area I think I think you know the horse is sort of left the gate on this I don't think we're going to be able to get back to that type of what about with or statutory change that miss Citroen was proposing let me just go on a little bit cuz who has the duty may I be clear for one second it wasn't that I was suggesting that social media platforms be understood as publishers strictly liable but rather that we conditioned their immunity unreasonable practices right those reasonable practices maybe the content moderation practices they use right now so I'm going to disagree about calling them publishers it would be directly liable for defamation that's not what I'm suggesting okay thank you for that clarification but that does seem that seems to be one fundamental question that we would have to ask because that would be a legislative action mr. Clark I think you have a whack-a-mole issue here where people sort of online go and talk in and they composed their own Prattville platforms very very quickly and they compose platforms to evade rules but we put against platforms doing certain types of things so I do agree with dr. David Orman here that it's it's very difficult to contemplate controlling speech in this way because I think the habit of the entire culture of people has changed what about on this question of somebody going online and putting up a fake video that destroys an IPO who has a duty of care with respect to allowing that to be stated on their platform nobody has it I think we can authenticate content and users and I think that you can make users culpable for certain types of content but they post would have the who would be liable in the case of that false statement about an IPO that destroyed its value I defer to the lawyer the speaker the speaker the creator of the deep fake and so long as as mr. Clark suggested the platform had reasonable practices of a thetic ation and sort of expletives a generation practices but does the platform under current law have any duty you have no liability under Section 230 that seems like a very direct question one of the other issues that is debated there's a there's a different point of view often between Republicans and Democrats about bias and what goes on in the platforms so there would have to be some standard that wasn't seen as tilting the the playing field for Republicans or Democrats is that possible to do and was that something that was true pre social media in the days of Jack yeah I was going to save it for standards we can actually use technology a bit here to create technological standards for making a judgement call as to whether something is or is not faked or synthetic and that might take the political aspect out of this if you have open standards developed primarily by academia the companies chimed in on and it's auditable by scientists who kick for tires and provide assurance it seems reasonable okay thank you all very much my time is up I yield back mrs. Demings thank you so much mr. chairman and thank you to all of you for being here you know this conversation this morning has been pretty disturbing and actually quite scary you know when I think about it the Internet is the new weapon of choice and as I listened to the testimony and the questions here you know as we think about an individual who goes out and valleys laws or creates harm would be held accountable I believe that any individual or entity that bullies or stalks or creates harm or a public safety becomes a public safety risk any entity that creates an environment for those things to happen should be held accountable as well and you know when I think about those around the world who are not our allies they want to create chaos in this country and what a wonderful way an easy way to be able to do that the problem that you know of course the fate information is a problem but the other problem is it creates an environment where good people no longer believe the good guys and baura we see in that in our country right now that's a that's a major problem all right institutions that we have grown to depend on and believe are no longer being believed and that can create total chaos back to mr. hex statement about say for example a fake video is being created it's created in America but then transmitted to another country could not the act of transmitting a simple act of transmitting that video be the violation because I know there has been a lot of discussion about their No Boundaries how do you hold someone in a foreign land accountable or but I'd love to hear your thoughts on that I think there are two pieces to that there's the sort of procedural jurisdictional question of whether its constitutional to haul them into your court personal jurisdiction and then there's the extradition question which I'm going to rely on I think mr. Watts for that but if you're in America and you transmit yeah video that creates a public safety concern or a national security risk could not the very act of transmitting it from America be the violation well as we talked about policies it's directed outside the United States so you're in the United States and you direct it outside outside and you transmitted from okay so that's order that was a different question that I thought you were asking because when we under the Fourteenth Amendment how we think about personal jurisdiction is that we say if you're aiming your activity and you're aiming a tort to another state you're doing it purposefully you're availing yourself of that state we can haul you into court so long as there's a long-arm statute but now you can tell I teach Civil Procedure but now we've confused me a little because then the question is when it's an American directing harmful activity abroad I would imagine that then is contingent on that country's jurisdictional rules and our extradition arrangements and treaties with them right so mr. Watts you want to take it from there yeah I mean I'm not a lawyer and I try to avoid them but I would generally say that there is no specific provision around transmitting that abroad I think it comes down to whatever country it is that is affected by it if it breaks their laws and then if they have an extradition relationship with the United States that is probably not worked out I'm not sure if it's ever been executed it could have and I and I'm not aware of it but it is something that needs to be addressed because what has been very clear over the last four years is there is no physical boundary in these communities and these disinformation networks online and they oftentimes the smartest manipulators out there Russia China Iran they actually look to enlist people in foreign lands to make the content look more authentic and they are setting people up sometimes that are aware of it and sometimes they're not aware of it and those that are aware of it are doing it willingly and so if you look at the McCrone leaks for example which was another hacking attempt trying to drive an election it was actually someone in North America that alerted the world to it right and and pointed the direction to it so I do think we need to figure out what those relationships and how we would handle it in terms of our own law enforcement environment because we are now going out to other countries and asking them to do that for us thank you and back to you I know we've talked quite a bit too about the intelligence community and our national security entities but could you talk just a little bit about how should we task the intelligence communities and our national security entities with assessing and forecasting future impacts of deep state technology I think there's two part one who are the purveyors and actors that are going to use that that's pretty straightforward I mean from the outside even where I work I can see a lot of that I think the part that might be missing from the government's perspective is where those technologies being developed the number one place I would have someone as a liaison in the US government right now is Tel Aviv I mean this has been a central hub of everything from cyber tools to influence tools influence operations both good and bad you know depending on what your perspective is but that is a tech hub I feel like oftentimes when I talk to the government about that they're really well informed about what deen state actors are doing but oftentimes missing what the private sector is openly available in terms of AI and other tools that are out there okay yes mr. Clark yes thank you okay just quickly to this point it's worth repeating that the fundamental techniques and tools for this are published openly online and we can easily compile quantitative metrics for the rate of improvement so we can do that forecasting so I agree with what mr. Watts said but it is easy to go and discover this information for ourselves thank you it's chairman are you back dr. winstram Thank You mr. chairman and thank you Miss Demings as you address the question that we ran out of time on on the extradition laws I appreciate having the opportunity to hear from you on that and you know just getting to other punitive measures that we may be able to start talking about and thinking about you know with the extradition laws though we might end up with a lot of people hanging out in other people's embassies for many many years rather than being extradited but at the same time well as a doctor I don't often find myself eager to engage with trial lawyers but that's probably where we need to head with with this as you know people are harmed through all this so you know I'm going through my mind what kind of punitive measures you know certainly monetary would be included because people end up as we pointed out with huge monetary losses because of these fake stories and and what about prison time I mean I think we really need to consider being pretty tough on this if it's to be effective one thing I would end the chairmanship brought up and I kind of ran out of time and the opening questions was about sanctions what we did see if you look at the GRU indictment in particular which i think is July of 18 there they're essentially being sanctioned or outed and so are those companies in the February 18 troll farm indictment that's very effective but you could move down the chain of command such that hackers and influencers propagandists don't want to be hired at those firms because they know the risk that they could be individually sanctioned I think that could be an effective technique it seems like it would be hard to execute but once we got good at it I think it would be a great Fassett which is if you can turn down the employment to where the best hackers and the best propagandist don't want to work with those authoritarian regimes it could change the nature of things I think we could also look at those that are pushing out tools and both in terms of cyber and hacking tools that are being used for very malicious purposes and for influence techniques you could actually go after those companies which are oftentimes international they're not necessarily tied to a nation-state and that would also send a downward pressure you know across the disinformation space it would also send it more undercover and places like the dark web but that's okay because that plays to our strengths which is we have great intelligence collection capabilities at that end and we have good sophisticated intelligence agencies and now we and now we would know where it is right more likely but it would be a black mark it changes the problem but I think to our advantage we're moving in the right well the other thing too is you know you mentioned sanctions and that does make a lot of sense especially if it's a country that there's no way you're going to get some type of extradition agreement you know in place right and I think that's the case with most of these locations whether it's China Iran or Russia those are the three big ones but it also would send a message out across the world if you're pushing on us there their options that we have I I do think that the time for offensive cyber is at hand and general knock Estonia I think has done some very good briefings recently about that talking about the measures that are taking if if these foreign manipulators makers a deep fakes that are working at troll forums cyber hackers knew that we were actually going to respond in a very aggressive way they would move away whether its arrest and extradition if it's sanctions individually or even in terms of cyber response right now there's not a whole lot of deterrence no it's proliferated because we have not responded thank you I yield back unless someone else wants to comment but I appreciate it thank you for the time thank you I just had a few fault questions can you talk a little bit about the oh I'm sorry mr. Castro thank you chairman professor citron first I enjoyed your article with Bobby Chesney out of UT Austin and had a chance to visit with him on some of these issues a few months back and you mentioned the case about falsehoods and I think this will be a monumental task for the legislative branch and then the judicial branch to grapple with how we treat deep fakes there's some speech like hate speech and fighting words that are not as protected obviously as political speech and in making that determination we have to figure out what the value is of the type of speech or expression so let me ask you what is the value of a fake and just to add to that and thank you so much for reading our piece is the value to the listeners right so when we think about free speech theory it's the value to the autonomy rights of the speaker and as for self-governance the creator in this case the creator but also of course the listeners sure and so the value of the fake could be profound right it could be that the deep fake contributes to art you know Star Wars we had Carrie Fisher coming back right there there's a lot of value in in indie fakes at the same so I recognize what my co-panelists are suggesting but we do have guides in the law about falsehoods impersonations so that what that cause harm whether it's defamation law or it's you know another kind of speech where we say fraud right so you think we may go down the road or the court eventually may go down the road where certain speech like hate speech is not protected obviously the same way as political speech or even ordinary speech you think we're gonna stay firm on hate speech I have a feeling I know but I mean for face that there will be fake certain fakes that are treated differently right another finding on the context you know all this is so contextual so I don't think we can have a one-size-fits-all rule for synthetic video well even as to impersonations because you could have satire and parody which is really valuable important at the same time we've got to bring context to the fore and say there are times when these falsehoods the deep fake causes real harm real harm that is cognizable and real harm that doesn't enjoy either doesn't enjoy First Amendment protects or enjoys less rigorous protection and we can regulate it let me let me follow up I want to ask y'all you know one of the big challenges that we had with the Russian interference particularly what they put on Facebook and social media is that it seemed as though the social media companies were unprepared for that and there was there no was there was no infrastructure for vetting or moderating those things so you know I mean just my rough sketch obviously y'all have thought about this a lot longer but I see that there's a creator who uses software who then posts on social media and then the traditional media picks it up and then further proliferate sit into the bloodstream of American society so where in there do we construct that infrastructure for vetting and for moderating these deep fakes who is responsible at each of those levels well I I you know again I'm not the lawyer or the policymaker but I think there's an there's another piece to that that puzzle somebody put something up that's innocent and on and it gets used by someone else for a different message so you know this is almost not even the deep fakes problem but something that gets that gets put out there and then gets twisted in a certain way somewhere down the line way out I mean there's a lot of people that don't realize sometimes that The Onion articles are actually satire exactly that's that's a that's a good example of that so I think we need these types of things that at every level that we need to be able to show the attribution of this information how it progressed and and be able to make those decisions at every level I would and I think that scenario is exactly what will happen going in to future elections by our foreign adversaries which will be to use as much organic American content that suits that our narrative and to amplify that and inject it back that's a pretty standard disinformation approach and especially as false content is proliferating you know there are more more people are able to make it each year they can make fake content that means that more it's more available for adversaries to repurpose and reuse which is the scenario that David just talked about so I think the social media companies need in terms of morality what are their thresholds for doing assessments how they do their content labeling and then even a triage within that in terms of severity of impact we know what some of those are right like mobilization to violence talking to violence but also in terms of effect to democracies and political institutions things related to elections right now I would be very worried about someone making a fake video about electoral systems being out or broken down on Election Day 2020 that we should already be building a battle drill you know a response plan about how we would handle that in the government in the state governments and the DHS as well as with the social media companies Thank You Jeremiah you'll be thank you just wanted to ask a few follow-up questions I don't know if any of you know to date how many millions of views the doctored video speaker Pelosi has received but I wonder if you have a sense of if there are X million views of that video how many of those millions will ultimately learn that that video was a fake and how many will be permanently misled and then what's more if you could comment on the phenomena that even if you're later persuaded that what you have seen of the person is not true I understand that psychologists will tell you that you never completely lose the lingering negative impression you have of the person so I wonder if you couldn't comment on those two issues fact checks and clarifications tend not to travel nearly as far as the initial news which so we would expect the same to hold here where for people who have seen the doctored video tiny minority will be aware that it was doctored the Assumption so the assumption will be if you put this out that a very small minority will actually learn that it's a fake no matter how good you or the press do of putting that out there because the the truth in this case that what you've seen is false is not going to be as visually impact they may not be visual at all as seeing the video the word quickly put it is if you care you care about clarifications and fact checks but if you're just passively enjoying media you enjoy media and so the experience of speaker fake is you you enjoy or experience fad media and an absolute minority care about whether that's true beyond the entertainment value you extracted from it and a general thing you know what what should you know whether it's journalism or what not what what should teachers in schools be educating young people about these days about whether you can believe what you see you know this gets to the liars dividend and by the way you know in politics there's a saying that the first time you hear an expression or anecdote or story you make personal attribution the second time you say somebody once said the third time it's pretty much yours so liars dividend is now out there but you know how do we how do we educate young people or not so young people about how to perceive media now without encouraging them to distrust everything in which case there is this large dividend it's it's true that the more that what we're seeing even if it's totally false confirms our worldview social psychology studies show that we are just gonna ignore it so that we will believe the lie if it confirm its confirmation bias theory so you're right that it becomes incredibly hard for the fakery to be debunked because it's so visceral video and because if it confirms your worldview it's gonna be it's really tough I guess that's the task of as parents as educators that as teachers as we talk to our students the critical eye 10 years ago remember the critical thinking was about how do we teach students how to do a google search and what can they believe everything that's in the firm you know prominent a search and whatever they're doing and we saw that you know you did a search for the term Jew what would come up first was a very violently anti-semitic site called Jew watch and teachers struggle to explain to students but just because it's prominent doesn't mean it's real right it doesn't mean that it's the authority and I think we're gonna have the same struggle today right that that yes we're gonna teach them about deep fakes and I think we've also got to teach them about the misuse of the phenomenon to avoid and escape responsibility well I mean the other challenge too is we we have a white house that is popularized the term fake to describe lots of things that are real in fact some of the most trusted news sources in the country so there's already an environment in which there's license to call things fake that are true but but are critical and it seems that that's a pretty fertile ground for the proliferation of information that is truly fake and we find ourselves frankly trying to find other words for it false fraudulent because fake now has been so debased as a term people don't know really what you mean by it I think it's worth noting too that when the president Trump referred to Acts they Access Hollywood tape he said well that never really happened the whole interview oh that was that wasn't right we've already seen the liars dividend happen in practice from the highest of the bully pulpits so I think we've got a real problem on our hands do you think there's some optimism for tools I've been involved in numerous arguments with friends where we've gone and checked so it's imperfect something like Wikipedia or you know you you end up using the information sources around you and you can train people for certain sources you can go to settle an argument as it were and I think that we can develop such tools for some of this technology and I think that you know that's a that's a great motivation for having this you know this information up front you know when when mr. heck was saying that you know he had a family member that didn't know about going to Snopes if that information was attached to the the video or the email or whatever ahead of time they would have had access to it and they wouldn't have had to go search for it well I'm just thinking of the you know applying in 2020 what we saw in 2016 and in 2016 among other things the Russians mimicked black lives matter to push out content to racially divided people and you can imagine a foreign bad actress particularly Russia dividing us by pushing out fake videos of police violence on people of color we have plenty of really authentic ones and but you could certainly push out videos that are enormous ly jarring and disruptive and and they are even more so than seeing a false video of someone and still having that negative impression you can't unwind the consequences of what happens in the community it's hard to mention that not happening because it's such low barriers to entry and and there'll be such easy deniability if I could add there is some good news in that social media if you watch Facebook's news room they're doing takedowns nearly every week now so they've sped that up precipitously but we actually have the curriculum for evaluating information sources in the US government I was trained on it at the FBI Academy they have it at the Defense Intelligence Agency Central Intelligence Agency which is how to evaluate information outlets how do you evaluate expertise they teach this it's a unclassified there's no secret sort of course but it's how you adapt that into the online space the audience I'm most worried about is actually not young people in social media it is the older generation who's come to this technology late that doesn't really understand they understand the way newspapers are produced where the outlet is coming from who the authors are so I was with a group at New York City Media Lab and they actually had a group of students it was how do we helped older generations new to social media or it has less experience evaluating these sources you can send them tips and cues do you know where this outlet is physically located at that's one do you know who the author is who the actual content provider is or again the social media company tell you I think there are simple tools like that that we could develop or the social media companies could develop for all audiences because it's not just for the young people young people actually have more iterations often times an information evaluation and digitally then their parents do they have actually done this at times more so I think in terms of thinking about approaches it's about you know what's the generation what are the platforms they are on do they understand that places like HM which are known for extremism is based in the Philippines and that's not really in the United States and in the sense of our ability to administer these things there are some simple tools I think we could do that are nothing more than widgets public awareness campaigns things that we can take from the government that we've already developed and really repackage for different audiences in the United States dr. Dorman if I could is the technology already at the stage we're good eh I can produce a video that is indistinguishable from real to people with the naked eye in other words could AI right now fool you if you don't have access to computer analysis of whether the video is authentic yes I think there are examples out there that if taken out of context that if they're sent out there and there there's a story or a message with it that people will believe it and it's not just people that have that agenda there are it was a video that was out there that showed a plane flying upside down very realistic-looking and I think what people will need to do is get confirmation from other sources that you know something really happened so a video in isolation but if you if that's what you're talking about a video in isolation you know you're you're given this asking is this does this look authentic or not independent of whether you know it passes the sniff test so to speak yes I think that type of technologies out there and it won't always be possible to disprove a video or audio by disproving the circumstances around it in other words if there were an audio of dr. Wenstrup purportedly on a phone discussing a bribe dr. Wenstrup wouldn't be able to say that I was in this place at this time and it couldn't possibly have been on the phone because the call could have taken place at any time or if there was a video of Al Demmings it won't always be possible for Val to show that she was somewhere else at the time is do you see the technology getting to the point where in the absence of the ability to prove externally that the video or audio is faith that the algorithms that produce the content will be so good that the best you'll be able to do is a computer analysis that will give you a percentage the likelihood this is a forgery is 75% but you won't ever be able to get to 100% are we headed for that day where it just won't be possible to show that something we have seen or heard is illegitimate so part of the metaphor program was exactly that coming up with a quantitative scale of what manipulation or what deception is I don't know if they've gotten there I left partway through the program but yes I think there is going to be a point where we can throw absolutely everything that we have at this at these types of techniques and there's still some question about whether it's authentic or not I there there there's no you know in the case of the audio you could do close analysis with tools and and voice verification all of those sorts of things but just like a court of law you're gonna have one side saying one thing and you're gonna have another side saying the other thing and there's going to be cases where there's nothing definitive III definitely my colleagues 74 the questions on that optimistic note we will conclude and once again my profound thanks for your testimony and your recommendations the committee is adjourned


4 Replies to “Congress on national security risks of A.I. and deepfakes – 06/13/2019”

  1. Morningstar Helel says:

    The will to power- Fredrich Nietzsche

  2. TheHoplite14 says:

    They're using this hearing in advance of there being any literal use of deepfakes so that if any of them make a gaff, they have plausible deniability and can ditch the blame on "deep fakes". Y'all know this, right?

  3. NP Walter says:

    AI will the death of US

  4. N A says:

    I sometimes wonder how these people get into office. They seem so clueless.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *