New York Times wants to use Blockchain to stamp out fake news

[windsmurf]

Technology Review summary:
https://www.technologyreview.com/f/614007/the-new-york-times-thinks-a-blockchain-could-help-stamp-out-fake-news/


Full NY Times Project announcement:
https://open.nytimes.com/introducing-the-news-provenance-project-723dbaf07c44

[Bud]

I do not see hows this a protection from fake news. Proofing an artefact from been altered is not the same as proofing it  was not a fake in its origin.

[windsmurf]

I do not see hows this a protection from fake news. Proofing an artefact from been altered is not the same as proofing it  was not a fake in its origin.

Its best used for larger files, such as photos and videos.  With it, you can authenticate the photo or video to have come from the NY times, with contextual information and date  included in the chain, so that it isn't misused. 

Of course for this to work fully, we need all news organizations to adopt it, so they can place their photos/videos in a blockchain with contextual information.
Once adoption passes a certain point, then people will learn to trust photos/videos that have blockchain traceability.  And altered photos/videos/deepfakes not being traceable to a credible source will become less trustworthy. 

Full explanation is on the 2nd link, which again is : https://open.nytimes.com/introducing-the-news-provenance-project-723dbaf07c44

[Bud]

Yes i have checked the link. What you are saying is you ultimately trust the origin of artefacts placed in the blockchain, in this case NY Times. My comment was about challenging that ultimate trust. The artefacts may not be genuine in the first place.

[windsmurf]

Yes i have checked the link. What you are saying is you ultimately trust the origin of artefacts placed in the blockchain, in this case NY Times. My comment was about challenging that ultimate trust. The artefacts may not be genuine in the first place.

They don't post specifics, but they say that the photo will be published in the blockchain... I take it to mean the entire photo will be contained in the chain.  So then you have a set of authenticating servers owned and operated independently by many publishers where each one has a copy. The user presumably would have a web browser with a trusted plug-in that does validation of the photo/video behind the scenes, validating them against multiple independently operated servers to prove authenticity. 
I'm not a blockchain expert and I'm sure it's probably more involved than this and there's probably some optimization solutions involved.

[Bud]

Sorry but it seems you still do not get my point... What i was saying was putting a fake photo in a block chain does not make the photo not fake one. This process only will only protect the fake photo from being changed further and create an illusion of truth, false sense of authenticity of the content in that photo. NY Times is basically saying "Do not question what we say, trust us, we never lie". Really?

[tggzzz]

Old crypto proverb...

If you think cryptography will solve your problem, you don't understand cryptography and you don't understand your problem.

[The Soulman]

Yes i have checked the link. What you are saying is you ultimately trust the origin of artefacts placed in the blockchain, in this case NY Times. My comment was about challenging that ultimate trust. The artefacts may not be genuine in the first place.

Correct, but the blockchain does help the different channels to be more consistent with their (fake) news, so they
all report the same so it must be trustworthy, surely, has to be??

I've stopped watching the news years ago.

[windsmurf]

Sorry but it seems you still do not get my point... What i was saying was putting a fake photo in a block chain does not make the photo not fake one. This process only will only protect the fake photo from being changed further and create an illusion of truth, false sense of authenticity of the content in that photo. NY Times is basically saying "Do not question what we say, trust us, we never lie". Really?

Yeah stamping out "fake news" is misleading.  All this will do is to validate sources of pictures, and for now, allow manual fact checking against the source. 
I foresee this enabling the development of an automated fact-checking system.    Of course, the question will still remain if the source of the facts are credible, but at least you will know if it checks out against media sources you've decided you trust more than others. 

[magic]

How about good old "just go to the purported source website and watch it there"? I always assume that copies and screenshots are spoofs unless proven otherwise.

Like seriously, people who care to validate whether what they watch is genuine can and already do it with ease. Your problem is different

And it probably cuts both ways: it will make it possible to prove that a copy of some embarassing garbage really comes from NYT or whoever else, making it impossible for them to ninja-edit mistakes and pretend nothing happened. I can see the crowds of journalists waiting eagerly for such technology