BBC documentary used face-swapping AI to hide protesters' identities
newscientist.com
newscientist.com
It immediately made me think of Channel 4's alternative Christmas message from 2020². While the technique is obviously different between the two, the step change in quality feels immense to me. Channel 4's was a few minute long heavily staged piece that didn't hold up to close scrutiny in my eyes, and the BBC's far more convincing example is applied to — I'll trust — somewhat organic recordings of multiple people.
Edit to add: I attempt to draw the connection here because we're talking about relatively cheap broadcast television and not $500,000,000 movies.
¹ https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001f7t5/hong-kongs-fi...
² https://www.channel4.com/press/news/deepfake-queen-deliver-c...
I watched and recall these events very well as I saw them unfold in real time; to be honest the AI filter is rather notable and is really no better than the home-brew deepfake stuff you've seen, to be honest. What that means is that the masses have access to tools that are sophisticated as the MSM platforms, which is in itself remarkable how quickly the barrier of entry has been made for building with these tools.
It's a good watch and should be on people's watchlist amongst other doumcaraies like 'Revolution of Our Times' [0] and 'Faceless' [1] which both use the low-tech masks that achieve the same end. Some have said it's a gimmick, which I partly agree, but what it does is serve to re-enforce the fact that these surveillance tools can and should be thwarted using some basic understanding of OPSEC and pre-caution: they didn't mention that the HK Police and CCP gathered a ton of data from the use of data tracking from publicly accessed information when protestors were taking the underground to get to and from protests and were tracked down for violating NSL later on in 2020-22 when the arrests came down and everone from activists to politicians and even media tycoon like Jimmy Lai were taken down with fake charges.
It's sad state of affairs, but it's a reminder of how quickly an affluent, well educated Society can come under the yoke of tyranny and lose decades of progress due the expansion of authoritarianism and should serve as a reminder of why 'this matters' despite it being an unpleasant aspect of 'civic duty.'
0: https://www.hkdc.us/revolution-of-our-times 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5YKKPizQi8
Example of it used by Benn Jordan (aka, The Flashbulb) [2]
Actors faces are already public. Then again,I would probably be pissed when my face would be used as a mask to say something I might not agree with. Interesting question if that is ethical or not.
It's likely not ethical, and I'm confident it's probably illegal. For example, can you setup a billboard at the side of a highway with Tom Hank's face on it and a quote that speaks to anti-trans rights, has a homophobic remark, or perhaps an anti-CCP statement? Probably not.
I'd say this is no different.
IANAL, but in the US you'd need (a) rights to the image being used (e.g. shot yourself, in public) & (b) a damn good argument that your juxtaposition of their likeness and your words doesn't cause them monetary damages (e.g. in the form of lost revenue from reputation).
Well... "need" is, as I often say, quite a strong word.
Might makes right, and money talks, so if you don't want to bother getting the rights, or the person who you want to exploit can't fight back, why not?
There's a long history of this kind of masking:
- Backlighting, with the face in deep shadow. Possibly with the original interviewee or an actor.
- Voice-Masking with some kind of voice-changer
- Using a voice-actor to say the words.
I would see this as the next evolution of this process.
So long as The actor being portrayed has given their consent to do this (they were hired for this specific job), and the facial expressions/behaviors are genuinely recreated I don't see any ethical or moral issues.
Idk, this seems like a case of using cool flashy tech because it's cool and flashy and not because it's better than the alternative (using an actor to portray the subject, blurring or blacking out the subject's face).
I think that would be a really cool feature that could help keep protesters safe. Dissidents could send footage to trustworthy outlets who would only make public the edited footage. Because of course people still want to share the event with the world, but they might not want to be identified in a place where if caught they get tortured, raped or even killed.
The individual face isn't really important most of the time, it's not like it makes a difference to the viewer. They could still give the unedited footage too police in places with legitimate rule of law if the government has a court order and can prove a crime was committed by an individual they have on tape.
Why would governments be using AI modified content to look for people to arrest? Is this really a serious risk to dissuade using it? Seems pretty unlikely that it simultaneously a) exclusively be used as the source + b) actually matches someone IRL.
Why wouldn't oppressive regimes that are arresting dissidents review footage of dissidents that makes them look bad? Harassing reporters and their sources is a very common way to suppress information.
Scientology does it, why wouldn't a government? https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardbehar/2020/08/05/sciento...
Because the faces aren’t real? They want to arrest dissidents not random people.
How can you tell? The entire point of the GP's comment is that they could be mistaken.
They literally say so in the documentary.
If it is widespread then the government workers doing facial recognition should be keenly aware of its existence and adapt by seeking photos from non-activist/protected sources… like the thousands of photos posted on social media after every protest.
The bad government doesn’t want to be arresting random people either they want the real ones.
I just think that this approach is perhaps more 'cool' than it is useful, it makes me think of Mr. Swirl[0] who got caught because of a fancy effect. Is face-swapping an actor's face really better than just using the actor outright?
This is standard practice by security forces of any dictatorship.
It's an interesting hypothetical for sure but it's stretch to call it a glaring flaw. Not really any worse than people being misidentified in normal photos.
That battle hasn't ended, either; it's been taken to the Crisis Pregnancy Centers, but I simply remind people: if you're up-in-arms about J6, insurrection is a two-way street and knows no Right nor Left.
A face covering would cost nothing and achieve the end goal of hiding their identity.
The latter is a huge win for making media people want to watch. Same reason all those cable stations segment the screen into four with a face in each corner, or why streamers overlay their gaming with a their face on a webcam. We like faces.
I get that people like faces, but the news should be real. Maybe I'm expecting too much of the BBC, but it seems pretty short-sighted to start carrying fake news, even if they are only starting with a fake face.
They claim that they face swapped real interviews of participants with actors instead of just having the actors perform the piece....
Yes, it's typical syntax in the English language to separate vowels in that manner. English has lots of very little foibles like this (Y is sometimes a vowel) that you would be privy to unless you're a native speaker, so I can understand why you'd be confused, take a look here [0] for more info.
0: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/12798/why-is...
Looking at OP's post history, I doubt they're confused about using 'an' vs 'a'.
In short, I think the use of 'an' here means it's a single specifically trained AI. It would not be wrong to say 'artificial intelligence was used' though, it just doesn't highlight the dedicated nature of the AI used.
Similar difference to 'Someone swapped the faces' and 'An expert swapped the faces'.
If you wanted anonymity and were willing to go to these lengths, then the face could be fully fictitious and AI generated. Thereby placing no one in fear of government retribution.
This only makes sense if you filmed actors and wanted to cover that glaring mistake in your propaganda, because you lack the necessary talent to actually render them with AI.
I don't buy it. Not a fan of authoritarian regimes, but this stinks.
Can you elaborate what you mean by this? I don't understand how you're concluding that this only makes sense if it's to cover up propaganda. Using actors as surrogates to protect people is a common practice, and this is a logical step forward (albeit one I disagree with).
This press release only makes any sense if they intend to preemptively combat investigations which show that these are actors and not the people that they claim.
> This press release only makes any sense if they intend to preemptively combat investigations which show that these are actors and not the people that they claim.
That assumes that there was a pretense that the people and identies are real. Documentaries and exposés commonly use methods to protect their subject's identities, including using actors and distorting the face/voice.
How likely is a match anyway? My impression is that even with large databases, faces are different enough to not be overwhelmed by hits. But then it's not as if I've used these systems so I don't know.
One step they could take is make one or more properties subtly different so that it definitely matches virtually nobody (plus then all the other features one can randomize).
The article has positive things to say about protecting protestors, but I see a tool used to blatantly manufacture facts.
Might as well make it obviously fake, or be honest about how this is art. Otherwise, it’s propoganda, whether as a tool for establishment or as a tool for activists.
If in fact the BBC did do this (and that's a BIG if) that would be a huge story and a major breach of the BBC's editorial policies.
2. I think you have misunderstood what they did. People often request that their identities are hidden when they are interviewed by news organizations. This is usually done by filming them in silhouette, and sometimes altering their voices. This is no different, except that the AI "mask" gives the viewer a different face to look at. It's not controversial or a breach of any policies.
Why? A 2020 documentary called Welcome to Chechnya looked at repression of LGBT Chechens and was the first documentary to use "advanced facial replacement techniques using artificial intelligence and novel visual effects technology so the viewer could see real faces displaying real emotions while still protecting the identities of the speakers" [1]
The documentary was released by HBO Films. The BBC also broadcast the documentary.
It was very upfront about it.
And it's weird because you really couldn't tell (except one of the guys looked blind, pretty sure I'm not just being racist as he didn't look like that at other times)
The actions of these freedom protesters are moot and useless. There's no sense reporting on their endeavors as the outcome is clear cut. Most of them will eventually end up in jail, dead or will have fled to the West.
The United Kingdom is the worst offender in this, they violently repressed any revolutionary attempt in their colonies.
Honk Kong is a chinese teritory, end of story. Like Texas, or the city of London. If those regions started violent protest to independize, they would be repressed. End of story. Shame on the West for such blatant imperialist attempt at meddling with chinese internal affairs.
This is absolutely disgusting. If China was trying to incite rebellions in british territories, promoting the views and opinions of independentist terrorists, what would be your opinion? What would be the opinion of "the media"?
Is simply disgusting, plain and simple imperialism.
I take it you don't actually watch any BBC output, then?
And they you said it is fine that China does it?
Hong Kong is more like Puerto Rico than like Texas. However, people from Hong Kong don't want to live under the ccp, while Puerto Ricans complain they arent better integrated to the US.
Go figure.
But there is also a key difference: Honk Kong is China. China didn't invade Honk Kong, is not a colony, is simply another chinese region.
What bussiness did the british have in India? Would you consider India a "legitimate" british territory, or a colony? Same with Puerto Rico, it is a colony, what bussiness does the USA have in Puerto Rico? Is not part of their natural geographical territory, they are simply colonies. The same cannot be said about Honk Kong. Is as chinese as Alaska is american or the Canary islands are Spanish and so on.
The british and american media are promoting independentism, terrorism and civil war to cause internal conflict in peaceful nations. That has always been their strategy when they cannot subjugate a nation by force. Promote conflict, war, divisions, invent excuses to invade, to boycott, to embargo. Blame others of what you do.
This is simply imperialism against China. Honk Kong is chinese territory, plain and simple, and western nationd have no bussiness promoting civil wars or independentism in foreign nations. This is not the 19 and 20th century anymore. Colonialism and imperialism are simply unnaceptable.
In general, we shouldn't be suppressing people. When a nation needs to use violence to force a region to come/remain within its union, without even a fair vote, that nation is on the bad side of history in my eyes.
And yes, my country has engaged in such misbehavior as recently as 60 years ago. I'm sorry on behalf of my country. Let's never do that again.
In psychology, there is a term where you blame others for what you do; it is called projection. The West should stop projecting its own imperialism onto others.
Shame on you for creating a throwaway account defending China's brutal authoritarian regime with whataboutisms.