Some days it feels like I'm the only hacker left who doesn't want government mandated watermarking in creative tools. Were politicians 20 years ago as overreative they'd have demanded Photoshop leave a trace on anything it edited. The amount of moral panic is off the charts. It's still a computer, and we still shouldn't trust everything we see. The fundamentals haven't changed.

> It's still a computer, and we still shouldn't trust everything we see. The fundamentals haven't changed.

I think that by now it should be crystal clear to everyone that it matters a lot the sheer scale a new technology permits for $nefarious_intent.

Knives (under a certain size) are not regulated. Guns are regulated in most countries. Atomic bombs are definitely regulated. They can all kill people if used badly, though.

When a photo was faked/composed with old tech, it was relatively easy to spot. With photoshop, it became more complicated to spot it but at the same time it wasn't easy to mass-produce altered images. Large models are changing the rules here as well.

Politicians absolutely were doing this 20-30 years ago. Plenty of folks here are old enough to remember debates on Slashdot around the Communications Decency Act, Child Online Protection Act, Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, Children's Internet Protection Act, et al.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

In the past, and maybe even to this very day - all color printers print hidden watermarks in faint yellow ink to assist with forensic identification of anything printed. Even for things printed in B&W (on a color printer).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots

Yes, can we not jump on the surveillance/tracking/censorship bandwagon please?

Easy to say until it impacts you in a bad way:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ai-generated-evidence...

> “My wife and I have been together for over 30 years, and she has my voice everywhere,” Schlegel said. “She could easily clone my voice on free or inexpensive software to create a threatening message that sounds like it’s from me and walk into any courthouse around the country with that recording.”

> “The judge will sign that restraining order. They will sign every single time,” said Schlegel, referring to the hypothetical recording. “So you lose your cat, dog, guns, house, you lose everything.”

At the moment, the only alternative is courts simply never accept photo/video/audio as evidence. I know if I were a juror I wouldn't.

At the same time, yeah, watermarks won't work. Sure, Google can add a watermark/fingerprint that is impossible to remove, but there will be tools that won't put such watermarks/fingerprints.

I suspect watermarking ends up being a net negative, as people learn to trust that lack of a watermark indicates authenticity. Propaganda won’t have the watermark.

Unless they've recently changed it, Photoshop will actually refuse to open or edit images of at least US banknotes.

You do know that every color copier comes with the ability to identify US currency and would refuse to copy it? And that every color printer leaves a pattern of faint yellow dots on every printout that uniquely identifies the printer?

Try photocopying some US dollar bills.

HN is full of authoritarian bootlickers who can't imagine that people can exist without a paternalistic force to keep them from doing bad things.