Given that getting the video recording is trivial achieved by just calling the person.
Faking audio is easier than faking video, so given the audio problem issue I don’t think this is how someone who wants to create a deepfake would do it.
A spelling mistake like the wrongly placed comma “please ,I was” is also unlikely for any attack that’s sophisticated enough to be a deepfake attempt.
A spelling mistake like the wrongly placed comma “please ,I was” is also unlikely for any attack that’s sophisticated enough to be a deepfake attempt.
I agree with the other points, but not this: sophistication is not a scalar. It’s quite possible to have access to sophisticated tools (which replicate and scale easily), but be sloppy or bad at English orthography (and not realize it).
I don’t think this is useful evidence for deep-fake scam over video-replay scam or vice-versa, but it could easily be evidence for either scam over actual help attempt. It depends entirely on how out of character such a misplaced comma would be for this particular friend.
At the moment deep-fake technology does not replicate and scale easily. Those attacks where it gets used are likely either high-stakes espionage or about stealing a significant amount of money.
This is one of those “The future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed” situations. Training is hard and expensive. Using is not. Whether you need to retrain for a given target is an architectural decision—it does make it harder to train (but sublinearly in targets).
A scammer can look for outliers. If someone wants to target you specifically, there’s a good chance that they can find a friend of yours that has more audio online than just what’s public on FB.
Given that getting the video recording is trivial achieved by just calling the person.
Faking audio is easier than faking video, so given the audio problem issue I don’t think this is how someone who wants to create a deepfake would do it.
A spelling mistake like the wrongly placed comma “please ,I was” is also unlikely for any attack that’s sophisticated enough to be a deepfake attempt.
I agree with the other points, but not this: sophistication is not a scalar. It’s quite possible to have access to sophisticated tools (which replicate and scale easily), but be sloppy or bad at English orthography (and not realize it).
I don’t think this is useful evidence for deep-fake scam over video-replay scam or vice-versa, but it could easily be evidence for either scam over actual help attempt. It depends entirely on how out of character such a misplaced comma would be for this particular friend.
At the moment deep-fake technology does not replicate and scale easily. Those attacks where it gets used are likely either high-stakes espionage or about stealing a significant amount of money.
This is one of those “The future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed” situations. Training is hard and expensive. Using is not. Whether you need to retrain for a given target is an architectural decision—it does make it harder to train (but sublinearly in targets).
Faking audio is not easier if all you have to go on is what’s public on FB: lots of pictures but not generally recordings of people speaking.
A scammer can look for outliers. If someone wants to target you specifically, there’s a good chance that they can find a friend of yours that has more audio online than just what’s public on FB.