Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Identity Deepfake Threats to Biometric Authentication Systems: Public and Expert Perspectives

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a significant gap exists between expert and public understanding of Gen-AI deepfake threats to biometric authentication, and that an empirically grounded tri-layer defense roadmap—centered on dynamic involuntary…

desk verdict Useful, honest perception data on deepfake threats to biometrics, but the roadmap's key technical claim about dynamic biometrics goes beyond what the evidence supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06825 v1 pith:6V3UCV6L submitted 2025-06-07 cs.HC cs.CR

Shijing He , Yaxiong Lei , Zihan Zhang , Yuzhou Sun , Shujun Li , Chi Zhang , Juan Ye This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.CR
keywords generativeAIdeepfakesbiometricauthenticationpublicperceptionexpertinterviewsdeepfakekillchaindynamicbiometricsprivacy-preservingdatagovernancemixed-methodstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that there is a major disconnect between how security experts and ordinary users evaluate the danger of AI-generated deepfakes to biometric logins, and that this gap is itself a security vulnerability. It bases the claim on a survey of 408 professionals in finance, healthcare, government, tech, and academia plus 37 interviews with 25 experts and 12 members of the public. The authors report that public trust in face and voice authentication rests on convenience and institutional endorsement, while experts consider static biometrics increasingly spoofable by generative models that can mimic blinking, micro-expressions, and subtle eye movements. To organize the threat, the paper adapts a cyber kill chain into a Deepfake Kill Chain and recommends a tri-layer mitigation framework: shift to dynamic involuntary signals such as gaze trajectories and microsaccades, store biometric data on-device with privacy-preserving analytics, and run targeted education campaigns. If correct, the work provides the first empirically grounded roadmap for defending identity systems against AI-generated impersonation, with the caveat that the linchpin technical claim—that involuntary eye movements are hard to spoof—rests on expert testimony rather than attack experiments.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Deepfake Kill Chain, an adaptation of the intrusion kill chain to biometric identity attacks, plus the tri-layer mitigation framework built on it. The kill chain maps the attack path—reconnaissance via harvested public media, weaponization with diffusion and NeRF models, delivery, exploitation of static biometric verification, installation, and command-and-control exploiting user unawareness—and identifies where Gen-AI compromises facial or voice recognition in multi-factor workflows. The mitigation framework's technical layer centers on dynamic, involuntary biometric signals such as microsaccades, drift, gaze trajectories, and facial micro-expression sequences, which the paper argues are markedly harder for current Gen-AI to replicate because they are unconscious, user-specific, and time-varying; the social layer targets consent interfaces and education; the legal layer targets privacy-preserving regulation and accountability. The dynamic-biometrics layer is the load-bearing piece: it converts expert testimony into a concrete defense priority.

What would settle it

Try to defeat a microsaccade-and-gaze liveness check with current video-generation models trained on short clips of a real person; if the fake passes as often as a genuine enrolment, or if ordinary phone cameras cannot capture these signals quickly in normal lighting, the central defense recommendation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a perception paradox: the public increasingly relies on biometric authentication for convenience while experts express grave concerns about spoofing of static modalities like face and voice recognition. Using a survey of 408 professionals and 37 interviews, the authors find significant demographic and sector-specific divides in awareness and trust, with finance professionals showing heightened skepticism and academia the most critical. They introduce a Deepfake Kill Chain model, adapted from Hutchins et al.'s intrusion kill chain, that maps how Gen-AI deepfakes are used against biometric systems, and propose a tri-layer mitigation framework (technical, social, legal) that prioritizes dynamic, involuntary biometric signals (e.g., microsaccades, gaze trajectories, micro-expression sequences), privacy-preserving data governance, and targeted educational initiatives. The paper positions this as the first empirically grounded roadmap for defending against AI-generated identity threats by aligning technical safeguards with human-centered insights.

Load-bearing premise

The roadmap's technical core assumes that tiny unconscious eye movements and other dynamic signals are much harder for today's AI forgeries to fake than static face or voice data, a premise based on expert opinion rather than tested in this paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Banks and government services should treat static face and voice checks as spoofable and add liveness or multi-factor checks for high-value actions.
  • Product roadmaps for biometric authentication should invest in time-series, involuntary signals such as gaze trajectories, microsaccades, and micro-expression sequences, and solve capture time and usability before deployment.
  • Data handling should move to on-device storage, encrypted backups, differential privacy or federated learning, and consent interfaces that users revisit over time.
  • Education programs should be sector- and age-targeted, focusing on older and mid-career professionals in government and healthcare, not just general awareness campaigns.
  • The Deepfake Kill Chain gives organizations a shared vocabulary to locate where Gen-AI attacks enter their workflows and which mitigations apply at each phase.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the perception gap is real and persists, convenience-driven adoption of biometric logins may be increasing the attack surface faster than defenses; a natural test would compare deepfake fraud rates against biometric adoption across sectors.
  • The kill chain model could be lifted from authentication to identity verification in courts, border control, and hiring, where the same static-media vulnerability applies; that extension is not tested here.
  • The authors' own expert quotes already warn that advanced deepfakes can mimic micro-expressions and eye movements convincingly, so the technical layer may be an arms race rather than a stable fix; future attacks on involuntary signals deserve explicit adversarial benchmarks.
  • Since public respondents were UK-based, the education and governance prescriptions may not transfer to other regulatory climates; re-running the survey in countries with weaker data-protection laws would test the generality of the perception gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a mixed-method investigation of expert and public perceptions of Gen-AI identity deepfake threats to biometric authentication. The authors survey 408 UK professionals across finance, healthcare, academia, government, and technology sectors, and interview 25 expert participants and 12 public participants. They report demographic and sector-level differences in AI familiarity, trust in biometrics, perceived industry readiness, confidence in biometric security, and ethical attitudes, and they introduce a 'Deepfake Kill Chain' threat model adapted from Hutchins et al. On this basis they propose a tri-layer (technical, social, legal) mitigation framework, with the technical layer prioritizing dynamic, involuntary biometric signals such as microsaccades and gaze trajectories. The abstract claims a significant public-expert perception gap and describes the work as the first empirically grounded roadmap for defending biometric systems against AI-generated identity threats.

Significance. If supported, the paper's core descriptive finding—that public trust in biometrics is not matched by expert concern about Gen-AI spoofing of static modalities—would be a useful, policy-relevant result for the security and HCI communities. The qualitative analysis is described with genuine care: the authors report multi-stage coding with independent codebooks, discrepancy reconciliation, and saturation, and the quantitative results are reported with detailed ANOVA/Tukey and interaction tables. The proposed Deepfake Kill Chain is a sensible extension of an established threat-modeling framework. The main weakness is the roadmap's technical pillar: the claim that dynamic involuntary biometrics are 'markedly harder to spoof' is presented as an empirical validation but is actually supported only by expert opinion and a gaze-estimation review, with no attack benchmark or measurement; Section 5.5 explicitly defers empirical validation to future work. This makes the headline 'empirically grounded roadmap' claim stronger than the evidence warrants, although the perception-gap findings themselves remain credible and useful.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 1 (Contribution) and Section 5.5] The contribution states, 'Our empirical validation shows that such signals are markedly harder to spoof,' but the paper contains no experiment, measurement, or attack benchmark for dynamic biometric signals. The only supporting evidence in Section 4.2.1 is expert opinion, and Section 5.5 explicitly says that 'future research should prioritize empirical validation of dynamic behavioral biometric modalities.' This is load-bearing because the tri-layer mitigation framework in Section 5.3.2 prioritizes involuntary eye movements and micro-expression sequences as the main technical defense. The claim should be reworded to describe these modalities as expert-identified promising directions with usability caveats, not as empirically validated defenses.
  2. [Section 4.2.1 and Section 5.3.2] The paper reports an unresolved contradiction among experts on the core technical premise. EP9 is quoted as saying that 'today's advanced deepfakes can already mimic things like micro-expressions and subtle eye movements pretty convincingly,' while EP1 is quoted as saying that 'deepfake now cannot replicate or manipulate reflexive eye responses.' The manuscript notes this disagreement but does not attempt to test or adjudicate it, yet Section 5.3.2 asserts 'the inherent difficulty current Gen-AI models face replicating these continuous, nuanced data patterns,' citing [100], which is a gaze-estimation review rather than a spoofing benchmark. Because the top-priority mitigation stands or falls on this empirical question, the authors should either temper the assertion or supply a direct comparison with relevant liveness/spoofing literature.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.1 (F4 result)] The abstract's example that 'finance professionals, for example, showing heightened skepticism' is not supported by the reported F4 (Confidence in Biometric Security) result. Section 4.1 states that 'Academia reported significantly lower confidence in biometric security ... compared to Finance Industry and Government/Public Sector,' which means finance actually shows higher confidence (and lower skepticism) than academia on this factor. The textual reference to 'Table 5' for this F4 post-hoc result is also wrong: Table 5 is a Tukey analysis for F1 by age, and no F4-by-industry post-hoc table appears in the appendix. This inconsistency affects the paper's summary of its own key quantitative contribution and should be corrected or qualified.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Appendix A] The survey relies on five composite factors (F1–F5), but the paper does not provide the individual Likert items, the scoring/aggregation procedure, or any internal-consistency measure (e.g., Cronbach's alpha) for these composites. Without this information, the ANOVA, mediation, and interaction results in Tables 4–10 are difficult to interpret or reproduce, and the claim of 'significant demographic and sector-specific divides' rests on constructs whose reliability is not demonstrated. The authors should include the full survey instrument and reliability statistics, or at least a representative item set with the factor derivation rules.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The sentence describing low-quality response removal reads awkwardly: 'such as completed the survey significantly faster than average were removed (under 5 mins, compared to the average completion time).' It should be rewritten to state the criterion precisely and to clarify whether the 5-minute cutoff was pre-specified or data-driven.
  2. [Section 4.2.2] There is a duplicated phrase, 'For instance, For instance, EP12 emphasized...' which should be corrected to a single 'For instance.'
  3. [Section 5.3.1] The Deepfake Kill Chain is described in prose with references to kill-chain phases, but it is never presented as a diagram or a stage-by-stage mapping table. Since the model is a claimed contribution, a figure or enumerated table would make the extension of Hutchins et al.'s framework concrete and easier to evaluate.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Appendix A] Several table references in the text do not match the appendix: the F4-by-industry post-hoc result is said to be in Table 5, but Table 5 contains F1-by-age comparisons; Table 6 is F5-by-working-area, not F4. The numbering and cross-references should be checked throughout Section 4.1.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The roadmap's dynamic-biometric hardness claim is grounded in the authors' own gaze review and deferred validation, but the central perception-gap findings are independent and empirical.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 5.3.2 (Technical mitigation), Section 1 (Contribution), Section 5.5 (Future Work)]
    "Embedding dynamic biometric signals, such as involuntary eye movements (e.g., micro-saccade and drift), offers a promising defense due to the inherent difficulty current Gen-AI models face replicating these continuous, nuanced data patterns [100]. ... Our empirical validation shows that such signals are markedly harder to spoof ... future research should prioritize empirical validation of dynamic behavioral biometric modalities, especially involuntary eye movements and facial micro-expressions, in realistic consumer device scenarios."

    The paper's first contribution asserts empirical validation that dynamic signals are markedly harder to spoof, but the only cited support for that hardness is [100], the authors' own gaze-estimation and interactive-applications review, which does not benchmark Gen-AI's ability to replicate microsaccades or gaze trajectories. Section 5.5 explicitly defers empirical validation of these modalities to future work. Expert testimony is split: EP9 says advanced deepfakes already mimic micro-expressions and subtle eye movements convincingly, while EP1 says reflexive eye responses cannot be replicated, and the paper tests neither side.

full rationale

The central empirical claim about a public-expert perception gap is self-contained: it rests on a 408-response survey and 37 coded interviews, not on any fitted parameter or circular definition. The Deepfake Kill Chain is an acknowledged adaptation of Hutchins et al., and the governance and education recommendations follow from participant testimony. The only circularity-adjacent move is in the technical mitigation layer: the hardness of involuntary dynamic biometrics is asserted from expert opinion and the authors' own prior review [100], while Section 5.5 defers the actual validation. This makes that specific recommendation an ansatz supported by self-citation rather than a measured result, but it does not compromise the independent perception-gap findings. Overall circularity is therefore partial and localized.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on self-reported survey data, expert testimony, and adopted frameworks. The only genuinely new conceptual artifact is the Deepfake Kill Chain, which has no external validation. The prescriptive technical claim about dynamic biometrics being harder to spoof is an assumption carried by expert opinion, not by measurement in this paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Survey completion cutoff (5 minutes) = 5 min
    Responses under 5 minutes were discarded as low-quality when the average was 9 minutes (Section 3.1); the cutoff is hand-chosen and directly changes the sample of 408.
  • F1-F5 factor composites = Equal-weight Likert composites
    Five factors are described in Section 3.2 but no factor analysis or reliability statistics (e.g., Cronbach's alpha) are reported; the composite construction is a modeling choice that the ANOVA and regression results depend on.
  • Recruitment stopping points = 408 survey, 37 interviews
    Recruitment stopped at thematic saturation and after exclusions (Section 3.1); the target numbers are researcher-chosen rather than power-calculated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Self-reported Likert responses reflect genuine awareness and trust perceptions
    Section 3.2 relies on self-report; the paper acknowledges social desirability bias in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption Prolific-recruited UK professionals are representative enough for sector comparisons
    Recruitment Section 3.1; sector subsample sizes are not reported by cell, and self-selection is acknowledged in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption Expert interviewees' opinions are valid evidence for threat-model content and mitigation effectiveness
    Findings Section 4.2.1 and mitigation Section 5.3.2; the paper converts expert testimony into prescriptive claims without independent technical validation.
  • domain assumption Hutchins' intrusion kill chain phases map onto Gen-AI deepfake biometric attacks
    Section 5.3.1 adopts the phase structure of [25] without justifying completeness for biometric-specific attacks.
  • domain assumption Thematic saturation implies theme coverage
    Recruitment Section 3.1; saturation is asserted for 7 PP interviews and 25 EP interviews, not demonstrated with additional interviews or code-count evidence.
invented entities (1)
  • Deepfake Kill Chain
    purpose: Maps Gen-AI deepfake attack phases against biometric authentication systems, adapted from Hutchins et al.'s cyber kill chain (Section 5.3.1).
    Presented as a conceptual model derived from 25 expert interviews; no falsifiable predictions or independent validation are provided beyond its fit to the interviews that generated it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identity Deepfake Threats to Biometric Authentication Systems: Public and Expert Perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6V3UCV6L

@misc{pith2026250606825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identity Deepfake Threats to Biometric Authentication Systems: Public and Expert Perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6V3UCV6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06825}
}
read the original abstract

Generative AI (Gen-AI) deepfakes pose a rapidly evolving threat to biometric authentication, yet a significant gap exists between expert understanding of these risks and public perception. This disconnection creates critical vulnerabilities in systems trusted by millions. To bridge this gap, we conducted a comprehensive mixed-method study, surveying 408 professionals across key sectors and conducting in-depth interviews with 37 participants (25 experts, 12 general public [non-experts]). Our findings reveal a paradox: while the public increasingly relies on biometrics for convenience, experts express grave concerns about the spoofing of static modalities like face and voice recognition. We found significant demographic and sector-specific divides in awareness and trust, with finance professionals, for example, showing heightened skepticism. To systematically analyze these threats, we introduce a novel Deepfake Kill Chain model, adapted from Hutchins et al.'s cybersecurity frameworks to map the specific attack vectors used by malicious actors against biometric systems. Based on this model and our empirical findings, we propose a tri-layer mitigation framework that prioritizes dynamic biometric signals (e.g., eye movements), robust privacy-preserving data governance, and targeted educational initiatives. This work provides the first empirically grounded roadmap for defending against AI-generated identity threats by aligning technical safeguards with human-centered insights.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06825 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of biometric authentication usage across devices, systems, and techniques. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Factor-Informed Uncertainty Distillation for Gaze Estimation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FIUD distills image-quality-based error predictions into a single-pass gaze uncertainty head, improving Spearman rank correlation and selective prediction versus ensembles, MC dropout, and heteroscedastic NLL baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [100]

    An End-to-End Review of Gaze Estima- tion and Its Interactive Applications on Handheld Mobile Devices

    Yaxiong Lei, Shijing He, Mohamed Khamis, and Juan Ye. An End-to-End Review of Gaze Estima- tion and Its Interactive Applications on Handheld Mobile Devices. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(2): 1–38, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Detecting Fake News in Social Media Networks

    Monther Aldwairi and Ali Alwahedi. Detecting Fake News in Social Media Networks. Procedia Computer Science, 141:215–222, 2018

    2018

  3. [2]

    Third Person Effects of Fake News: Fake News Regulation and Media Liter- acy Interventions

    S Mo Jang and Joon K Kim. Third Person Effects of Fake News: Fake News Regulation and Media Liter- acy Interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80:295–302, 2018

    2018

  4. [3]

    False Information on Web and Social Media: A Survey

    Srijan Kumar and Neil Shah. False Information on Web and Social Media: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.08559, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    DeepFake Generation and Detection: A Benchmark and Survey

    Gan Pei, Jiangning Zhang, Menghan Hu, Zhenyu Zhang, Chengjie Wang, Yunsheng Wu, Guangtao Zhai, Jian Yang, Chunhua Shen, and Dacheng Tao. DeepFake Generation and Detection: A Benchmark and Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17881, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Digital Deception: Generative Artificial Intelligence in Social Engineer- ing and Phishing

    Marc Schmitt and Ivan Flechais. Digital Deception: Generative Artificial Intelligence in Social Engineer- ing and Phishing. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57 (12):1–23, 2024

    2024

  7. [6]

    CEO of World’s Biggest Ad Firm Targeted by DeepFake Scam, 2024

    The Guardian. CEO of World’s Biggest Ad Firm Targeted by DeepFake Scam, 2024. URL https: //www.theguardian.com/technology/artic le/2024/may/10/ceo-wpp-deepfake-scam

    2024

  8. [7]

    Testing Human Ability to Detect ‘DeepFake’ Images of Human Faces

    Sergi D Bray, Shane D Johnson, and Bennett Klein- berg. Testing Human Ability to Detect ‘DeepFake’ Images of Human Faces. Journal of Cybersecurity, 9(1):tyad011, 2023

    2023

Show all 123 references
  1. [8]

    OmniHuman-1: Re- thinking the Scaling-Up of One-Stage Condi- tioned Human Animation Models

    Gaojie Lin, Jianwen Jiang, Jiaqi Yang, Zerong Zheng, and Chao Liang. OmniHuman-1: Re- thinking the Scaling-Up of One-Stage Condi- tioned Human Animation Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01061, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    To Believe or Not to Believe: Framing Analysis of Content and Audience Response of Top 10 DeepFake Videos on YouTube

    YoungAh Lee, Kuo-Ting Huang, Robin Blom, Re- becca Schriner, and Carl A Ciccarelli. To Believe or Not to Believe: Framing Analysis of Content and Audience Response of Top 10 DeepFake Videos on YouTube. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(3):153–158, 2021

    2021

  3. [10]

    Deepfake Videos in the Wild: Analysis and Detection

    Jiameng Pu, Neal Mangaokar, Lauren Kelly, Paran- tapa Bhattacharya, Kavya Sundaram, Mobin Javed, Bolun Wang, and Bimal Viswanath. Deepfake Videos in the Wild: Analysis and Detection. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , pages 981–992, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    A Review of Image Processing Techniques for DeepFakes

    Hina Fatima Shahzad, Furqan Rustam, Em- manuel Soriano Flores, Juan Luis Vidal Mazon, Is- abel de la Torre Diez, and Imran Ashraf. A Review of Image Processing Techniques for DeepFakes. Sensors, 22(12):4556, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Zooming into Video Conferencing Privacy

    Dima Kagan, Galit Fuhrmann Alpert, and Michael Fire. Zooming into Video Conferencing Privacy. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Sys- tems, 11(1):933–944, 2023

    2023

  6. [13]

    DeepFakes, Misinformation and Disinformation and Authenticity Infrastructure Re- sponses: Impacts on Frontline Witnessing, Distant Witnessing, and Civic Journalism

    Sam Gregory. DeepFakes, Misinformation and Disinformation and Authenticity Infrastructure Re- sponses: Impacts on Frontline Witnessing, Distant Witnessing, and Civic Journalism. Journalism, 23 (3):708–729, 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    Reliable Bio- metric Authentication with Privacy Protection

    Shilpi Barman Sharma, Ishika Dhall, Soumya Ran- jan Nayak, and Pushpita Chatterjee. Reliable Bio- metric Authentication with Privacy Protection. In Proceedings of the 2021 Advances in Communi- cation, Devices and Networking , pages 233–249. 2022

    2021

  8. [15]

    Multi-Factor Authentication: A Survey

    Aleksandr Ometov, Sergey Bezzateev, Niko Mäki- talo, Sergey Andreev, Tommi Mikkonen, and Yev- geni Koucheryavy. Multi-Factor Authentication: A Survey. Cryptography, 2(1):1, 2018

    2018

  9. [16]

    A Survey on Biomet- ric Authentication: Toward Secure and Privacy- Preserving Identification

    Zhang Rui and Zheng Yan. A Survey on Biomet- ric Authentication: Toward Secure and Privacy- Preserving Identification. IEEE Access, 7:5994– 6009, 2018

    2018

  10. [17]

    DeepFake Video Detection Using Recurrent Neural Networks

    David Güera and Edward J Delp. DeepFake Video Detection Using Recurrent Neural Networks. InPro- ceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance, pages 1–6, 2018

    2018

  11. [18]

    DeepFake Detection through Deep Learning

    Deng Pan, Lixian Sun, Rui Wang, Xingjian Zhang, and Richard O Sinnott. DeepFake Detection through Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Big Data Computing, Applications and Technologies, pages 134–143, 2020

    2020

  12. [19]

    AI-Enabled Future Crime

    Matthew Caldwell, Jerone TA Andrews, Thomas Tanay, and Lewis D Griffin. AI-Enabled Future Crime. Crime Science, 9(1):1–13, 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    Deepfake Pri- vacy: Attitudes and Regulation

    Matthew B Kugler and Carly Pace. Deepfake Pri- vacy: Attitudes and Regulation. Nw. UL Rev., 2021

    2021

  14. [21]

    DeepFake Disasters: A Comprehensive Re- view of Technology, Ethical Concerns, Countermea- sures, and Societal Implications

    Devendra Chapagain, Naresh Kshetri, and Bindu Aryal. DeepFake Disasters: A Comprehensive Re- view of Technology, Ethical Concerns, Countermea- sures, and Societal Implications. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Networks and Computer Comm...

    2024

  15. [22]

    Regulating Deep Fakes: 15 Identity Deepfake Threats to Biometric Authentication Systems A PREPRINT Legal and Ethical Considerations

    Edvinas Meskys, Julija Kalpokiene, Paul Jurcys, and Aidas Liaudanskas. Regulating Deep Fakes: 15 Identity Deepfake Threats to Biometric Authentication Systems A PREPRINT Legal and Ethical Considerations. Journal of In- tellectual Property Law & Practice , 15(1):24–31, 2020

    2020

  16. [23]

    Decent DeepFakes? Professional Deepfake Developers’ Ethical Considerations and Their Governance Potential

    Maria Pawelec. Decent DeepFakes? Professional Deepfake Developers’ Ethical Considerations and Their Governance Potential. AI and Ethics, pages 1–26, 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018 for Information Professionals and Researchers

    Quan Nha Hong, Sergi Fàbregues, Gillian Bartlett, Felicity Boardman, Margaret Cargo, Pierre Dage- nais, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Frances Griffiths, Be- linda Nicolau, Alicia O’Cathain, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018 for Information Professionals and Re...

    2018

  18. [25]

    Intelligence-Driven Computer Network Defense Informed by Analysis of Adversary Cam- paigns and Intrusion Kill Chains

    Eric M Hutchins, Michael J Cloppert, Rohan M Amin, et al. Intelligence-Driven Computer Network Defense Informed by Analysis of Adversary Cam- paigns and Intrusion Kill Chains. Leading Issues in Information Warfare & Security Research, 1(1):80, 2011

    2011

  19. [26]

    DeepFake Detection: Current Chal- lenges and Next Steps

    Siwei Lyu. DeepFake Detection: Current Chal- lenges and Next Steps. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops, pages 1–6, 2020

    2020

  20. [27]

    Identity-Aware Variational Autoen- coder for Face Swapping

    Zonglin Li, Zhaoxin Zhang, Shengfeng He, Quan- ling Meng, Shengping Zhang, Bineng Zhong, and Rongrong Ji. Identity-Aware Variational Autoen- coder for Face Swapping. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 34(7): 5466–5479, 2024

    2024

  21. [28]

    DeepVision: DeepFakes Detection Using Human Eye Blinking Pattern

    Tackhyun Jung, Sangwon Kim, and Keecheon Kim. DeepVision: DeepFakes Detection Using Human Eye Blinking Pattern. IEEE Access, 8:83144–83154, 2020

    2020

  22. [29]

    Head Pose Estimation Patterns as DeepFake Detectors

    Federico Becattini, Carmen Bisogni, Vincenzo Loia, Chiara Pero, and Fei Hao. Head Pose Estimation Patterns as DeepFake Detectors. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, 20(11):1–24, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Image Splicing Forgery Detection: A Review

    Ritesh Kumari and Hitendra Garg. Image Splicing Forgery Detection: A Review. Multimedia Tools and Applications, pages 1–39, 2024

    2024

  24. [31]

    Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes

    Diederik P Kingma. Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Analyz- ing and Improving the Image Quality of Stylegan

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Analyz- ing and Improving the Image Quality of Stylegan. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8110–8119, 2020

    2020

  26. [33]

    Generative Adver- sarial Networks

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative Adver- sarial Networks. Communications of the ACM, 63 (11):139–144, 2020

    2020

  27. [34]

    Stable Video Diffusion: Scaling Latent Video Diffusion Models to Large Datasets

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Ku- lal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Dominik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram V oleti, Adam Letts, et al. Stable Video Diffusion: Scaling Latent Video Diffusion Models to Large Datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Animatediff: Ani- mate Your Personalized Text-to-Image Diffusion Models without Specific Tuning

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Anyi Rao, Zhengyang Liang, Yaohui Wang, Yu Qiao, Maneesh Agrawala, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Animatediff: Ani- mate Your Personalized Text-to-Image Diffusion Models without Specific Tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Towards a Simultaneous and Granular Identity-Expression Control in Personalized Face Generation

    Renshuai Liu, Bowen Ma, Wei Zhang, Zhipeng Hu, Changjie Fan, Tangjie Lv, Yu Ding, and Xuan Cheng. Towards a Simultaneous and Granular Identity-Expression Control in Personalized Face Generation. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Reco...

    2024

  30. [37]

    Follow- Your-Emoji: Fine-Controllable and Expressive Freestyle Portrait Animation

    Yue Ma, Hongyu Liu, Hongfa Wang, Heng Pan, Yingqing He, Junkun Yuan, Ailing Zeng, Chengfei Cai, Heung-Yeung Shum, Wei Liu, et al. Follow- Your-Emoji: Fine-Controllable and Expressive Freestyle Portrait Animation. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2024, pages 1–12, 2024

    2024

  31. [38]

    Multimodal Emotional Talking Face Generation based on Action Units

    Jiayi Lyu, Xing Lan, Guohong Hu, Hanyu Jiang, Wei Gan, Jinbao Wang, and Jian Xue. Multimodal Emotional Talking Face Generation based on Action Units. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2024

    2024

  32. [39]

    It’s Trying Too Hard To Look Real: Deepfake Moderation Mistakes and Identity-Based Bias

    Jaron Mink, Miranda Wei, Collins W Munyendo, Kurt Hugenberg, Tadayoshi Kohno, Elissa M Red- miles, and Gang Wang. It’s Trying Too Hard To Look Real: Deepfake Moderation Mistakes and Identity-Based Bias. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sy...

    2024

  33. [40]

    DreamTalk: When Expressive Talking Head Gener- ation Meets Diffusion Probabilistic Models

    Yifeng Ma, Shiwei Zhang, Jiayu Wang, Xi- ang Wang, Yingya Zhang, and Zhidong Deng. DreamTalk: When Expressive Talking Head Gener- ation Meets Diffusion Probabilistic Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09767, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Talking Face Generation by Adver- sarially Disentangled Audio-Visual Representation

    Hang Zhou, Yu Liu, Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, and Xi- aogang Wang. Talking Face Generation by Adver- sarially Disentangled Audio-Visual Representation. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 9299–9306, 2019

    2019

  35. [42]

    IA-FaceS: A Bidirectional Method for Semantic Face Editing

    Wenjing Huang, Shikui Tu, and Lei Xu. IA-FaceS: A Bidirectional Method for Semantic Face Editing. Neural Networks, 158:272–292, 2023

    2023

  36. [43]

    L2M-GAN: Learning to Manipulate Latent Space Semantics for Facial Attribute Editing

    Guoxing Yang, Nanyi Fei, Mingyu Ding, Guangzhen Liu, Zhiwu Lu, and Tao Xiang. L2M-GAN: Learning to Manipulate Latent Space Semantics for Facial Attribute Editing. In Pro- ceedings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on 16 Identity Deepfake Threats to Biometric Authentication Syste...

    2021

  37. [44]

    DeepFake Crime: Trends, Threats and Implications

    Venessa Ninovic. DeepFake Crime: Trends, Threats and Implications. International Journal of Contem- porary Intelligence Issues, 1(2):41–55, 2024

    2024

  38. [45]

    Perspectives on DeepFakes for Pri- vacy: Comparing Perceptions of Photo Owners and Obfuscated Individuals towards DeepFake Versus Traditional Privacy-Enhancing Obfuscation

    Mohamed Khamis, Rebecca Panskus, Habiba Farzand, Marija Mumm, Shaun Macdonald, and Karola Marky. Perspectives on DeepFakes for Pri- vacy: Comparing Perceptions of Photo Owners and Obfuscated Individuals towards DeepFake Versus Traditional Privacy-Enhancing Obfuscation. In Pro-...

    2024

  39. [46]

    Implicit Identity Driven Deepfake Face Swapping Detection

    Baojin Huang, Zhongyuan Wang, Jifan Yang, Ji- axin Ai, Qin Zou, Qian Wang, and Dengpan Ye. Implicit Identity Driven Deepfake Face Swapping Detection. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR), pages 4490–4499, 2023

    2023

  40. [47]

    Local Relation Learning for Face Forgery Detection

    Shen Chen, Taiping Yao, Yang Chen, Shouhong Ding, Jilin Li, and Rongrong Ji. Local Relation Learning for Face Forgery Detection. Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, 35(2):1081–1088, May 2021

    2021

  41. [48]

    UIA-ViT: Unsupervised Inconsistency- Aware Method based on Vision Transformer for Face Forgery Detection

    Wanyi Zhuang, Qi Chu, Zhentao Tan, Qiankun Liu, Haojie Yuan, Changtao Miao, Zixiang Luo, and Nenghai Yu. UIA-ViT: Unsupervised Inconsistency- Aware Method based on Vision Transformer for Face Forgery Detection. In Proceedings of the 2022 European Conference on Computer Vision ...

    2022

  42. [49]

    Multi-Attentional Deepfake Detection

    Hanqing Zhao, Wenbo Zhou, Dongdong Chen, Tianyi Wei, Weiming Zhang, and Nenghai Yu. Multi-Attentional Deepfake Detection. In Proceed- ings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2185– 2194, June 2021

    2021

  43. [50]

    Representa- tive Forgery Mining for Fake Face Detection

    Chengrui Wang and Weihong Deng. Representa- tive Forgery Mining for Fake Face Detection. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 14923–14932, June 2021

    2021

  44. [51]

    AltFreezing for More General Video Face Forgery Detection

    Zhendong Wang, Jianmin Bao, Wengang Zhou, Weilun Wang, and Houqiang Li. AltFreezing for More General Video Face Forgery Detection. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4129–4138, 2023

    2023

  45. [52]

    TALL: Thumbnail Lay- out for Deepfake Video Detection

    Yuting Xu, Jian Liang, Gengyun Jia, Ziming Yang, Yanhao Zhang, and Ran He. TALL: Thumbnail Lay- out for Deepfake Video Detection. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 22601–22611, October 2023

    2023

  46. [53]

    Exploring Temporal Coher- ence for More General Video Face Forgery Detec- tion

    Yinglin Zheng, Jianmin Bao, Dong Chen, Ming Zeng, and Fang Wen. Exploring Temporal Coher- ence for More General Video Face Forgery Detec- tion. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15024–15034, October 2021

    2021

  47. [54]

    Learning Self- Consistency for Deepfake Detection

    Tianchen Zhao, Xiang Xu, Mingze Xu, Hui Ding, Yuanjun Xiong, and Wei Xia. Learning Self- Consistency for Deepfake Detection. In Proceed- ings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 15003–15013, Oc- tober 2021

    2021

  48. [55]

    Spatiotemporal Inconsistency Learning for Deep- fake Video Detection

    Zhihao Gu, Yang Chen, Taiping Yao, Shouhong Ding, Jilin Li, Feiyue Huang, and Lizhuang Ma. Spatiotemporal Inconsistency Learning for Deep- fake Video Detection. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multime- dia, 2021

    2021

  49. [56]

    Transcending Forgery Specificity with Latent Space Augmentation for Generalizable Deepfake Detection

    Zhiyuan Yan, Yuhao Luo, Siwei Lyu, Qingshan Liu, and Baoyuan Wu. Transcending Forgery Specificity with Latent Space Augmentation for Generalizable Deepfake Detection. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 8984–8994, ...

    2024

  50. [57]

    Detecting Deepfakes with Self-Blended Images

    Kaede Shiohara and Toshihiko Yamasaki. Detecting Deepfakes with Self-Blended Images. In Proceed- ings of the 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18699– 18708, June 2022

    2022

  51. [58]

    Self-supervised Learning of Adversarial Example: Towards Good Generaliza- tions for Deepfake Detection

    Liang Chen, Yong Zhang, Yibing Song, Lingqiao Liu, and Jue Wang. Self-supervised Learning of Adversarial Example: Towards Good Generaliza- tions for Deepfake Detection. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18689–18698...

    2022

  52. [59]

    Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. In Proceedings of th...

    2021

  53. [60]

    VideoMAE: Masked Autoencoders are Data- Efficient Learners for Self-Supervised Video Pre- Training

    Zhan Tong, Yibing Song, Jue Wang, and Limin Wang. VideoMAE: Masked Autoencoders are Data- Efficient Learners for Self-Supervised Video Pre- Training. In Proceedings of the 2022 Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 10078–10093, 2022

    2022

  54. [61]

    Is Space-Time Attention All You Need for Video Understanding? In ICML, volume 2, page 4, 2021

    Gedas Bertasius, Heng Wang, and Lorenzo Torre- sani. Is Space-Time Attention All You Need for Video Understanding? In ICML, volume 2, page 4, 2021

    2021

  55. [62]

    Detecting and Simulating Artifacts in GAN Fake Images

    Xu Zhang, Svebor Karaman, and Shih-Fu Chang. Detecting and Simulating Artifacts in GAN Fake Images. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Inter- national Workshop on Information Forensics and Security, pages 1–6, 2019. 17 Identity Deepfake Threats to Biometric Authentication Systems...

    2019

  56. [63]

    Do GANs Leave Artificial Fingerprints? In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Con- ference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval, pages 506–511, 2019

    Francesco Marra, Diego Gragnaniello, Luisa Verdo- liva, and Giovanni Poggi. Do GANs Leave Artificial Fingerprints? In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Con- ference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval, pages 506–511, 2019

    2019

  57. [64]

    Attribut- ing Fake Images to GANs: Learning and Analyz- ing GAN Fingerprints

    Ning Yu, Larry S Davis, and Mario Fritz. Attribut- ing Fake Images to GANs: Learning and Analyz- ing GAN Fingerprints. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7556–7566, 2019

    2019

  58. [65]

    Watch Your Up-Convolution: CNN Based Genera- tive Deep Neural Networks Are Failing to Repro- duce Spectral Distributions

    Ricard Durall, Margret Keuper, and Janis Keuper. Watch Your Up-Convolution: CNN Based Genera- tive Deep Neural Networks Are Failing to Repro- duce Spectral Distributions. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7890–7899, 2020

    2020

  59. [66]

    Proactive Image Manipulation Detec- tion

    Vishal Asnani, Xi Yin, Tal Hassner, Sijia Liu, and Xiaoming Liu. Proactive Image Manipulation Detec- tion. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15386–15395, 2022

    2022

  60. [67]

    Proactive Deepfake Defence via Identity Watermarking

    Yuan Zhao, Bo Liu, Ming Ding, Baoping Liu, Tian- qing Zhu, and Xin Yu. Proactive Deepfake Defence via Identity Watermarking. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 4602–4611, 2023

    2023

  61. [68]

    FakeTagger: Robust Safeguards against DeepFake Dissemination via Provenance Tracking

    Run Wang, Felix Juefei-Xu, Meng Luo, Yang Liu, and Lina Wang. FakeTagger: Robust Safeguards against DeepFake Dissemination via Provenance Tracking. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia, pages 3546–3555, 2021

    2021

  62. [69]

    Artificial Fingerprinting for Generative Models: Rooting DeepFake Attribution in Training Data

    Ning Yu, Vladislav Skripniuk, Sahar Abdelnabi, and Mario Fritz. Artificial Fingerprinting for Generative Models: Rooting DeepFake Attribution in Training Data. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision, pages 14448–14457, 2021

    2021

  63. [70]

    Generative AI and Deepfake Detection in Biometric Systems

    Farrukh Aslam Khan and Muhammad Khurram Khan. Generative AI and Deepfake Detection in Biometric Systems. Cognitive Computation, 17(3): 1–21, 2025

    2025

  64. [71]

    Exposing Deep Fakes Using Inconsistent Head Poses

    Xin Yang, Yuezun Li, and Siwei Lyu. Exposing Deep Fakes Using Inconsistent Head Poses. In Pro- ceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 8261–8265, 2019

    2019

  65. [72]

    Lips Don’t Lie: A Generalisable and Robust Approach to Face Forgery Detection

    Alexandros Haliassos, Konstantinos V ougioukas, Stavros Petridis, and Maja Pantic. Lips Don’t Lie: A Generalisable and Robust Approach to Face Forgery Detection. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, pages 5039–5049, 2021

    2021

  66. [73]

    Preventing DeepFake Attacks on Speaker Authentication by Dynamic Lip Move- ment Analysis

    Chen-Zhao Yang, Jun Ma, Shilin Wang, and Alan Wee-Chung Liew. Preventing DeepFake Attacks on Speaker Authentication by Dynamic Lip Move- ment Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 16:1841–1854, 2020

    2020

  67. [74]

    In Ictu Oculi: Exposing AI Created Fake Videos by Detecting Eye Blinking

    Yuezun Li, Ming-Ching Chang, and Siwei Lyu. In Ictu Oculi: Exposing AI Created Fake Videos by Detecting Eye Blinking. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Workshop on Information Foren- sics and Security, pages 1–7, 2018

    2018

  68. [75]

    Biometric Recognition: Security and Privacy Con- cerns

    Salil Prabhakar, Sharath Pankanti, and Anil K Jain. Biometric Recognition: Security and Privacy Con- cerns. IEEE Security & Privacy, 1(2):33–42, 2003

    2003

  69. [76]

    Public Attitudes Towards the Use of Automatic Facial Recognition Technology in Criminal Justice Systems Around the World

    Kay L Ritchie, Charlotte Cartledge, Bethany Growns, An Yan, Yuqing Wang, Kun Guo, Robin SS Kramer, Gary Edmond, Kristy A Martire, Mehera San Roque, and David White. Public Attitudes Towards the Use of Automatic Facial Recognition Technology in Criminal Justice Systems Around t...

    2021

  70. [77]

    A First Look into Users’ Percep- tions of Facial Recognition in the Physical World

    Sovantharith Seng, Mahdi Nasrullah Al-Ameen, and Matthew Wright. A First Look into Users’ Percep- tions of Facial Recognition in the Physical World. Computers & Security, 105:102227, 2021

    2021

  71. [78]

    Political Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: an Overview of Deep- fakes and Their Implications

    Daniele Battista. Political Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: an Overview of Deep- fakes and Their Implications. Society Register, 8(2): 7–24, 2024

    2024

  72. [79]

    Understanding the Impact of AI- Generated Deepfakes on Public Opinion, Political Discourse, and Personal Security in Social Media

    Prakash L Kharvi. Understanding the Impact of AI- Generated Deepfakes on Public Opinion, Political Discourse, and Personal Security in Social Media. IEEE Security & Privacy, 2024

    2024

  73. [80]

    Understanding and Empowering Intelligence Analysts: User-Centered Design for Deepfake Detection Tools

    Y Kelly Wu, Saniat Javid Sohrawardi, Candice R Gerstner, and Matthew Wright. Understanding and Empowering Intelligence Analysts: User-Centered Design for Deepfake Detection Tools. In Proceed- ings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–26, 2025

    2025

  74. [81]

    A Repre- sentative Study on Human Detection of Artificially Generated Media across Countries

    Joel Frank, Franziska Herbert, Jonas Ricker, Lea Schönherr, Thorsten Eisenhofer, Asja Fischer, Markus Dürmuth, and Thorsten Holz. A Repre- sentative Study on Human Detection of Artificially Generated Media across Countries. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security...

    2024

  75. [82]

    Anna Yoo Jeong Ha, Josephine Passananti, Ronik Bhaskar, Shawn Shan, Reid Southen, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y Zhao. Organic or Diffused: Can We Dis- tinguish Human Art from AI-Generated Images? In Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Confer- ence on Computer and Communications Se...

    2024

  76. [83]

    AI- Synthesized Faces are Indistinguishable from Real Faces and More Trustworthy

    Sophie J Nightingale and Hany Farid. AI- Synthesized Faces are Indistinguishable from Real Faces and More Trustworthy. Proceedings of the 2022 National Academy of Sciences , 119(8): e2120481119, 2022. 18 Identity Deepfake Threats to Biometric Authentication Systems A PREPRINT

    2022

  77. [84]

    Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security

    Robert Chesney and Danielle Citron. Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security. California Law Review, 2019

    2019

  78. [85]

    De- termining Authenticity of Video Evidence in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Deepfakes

    Marin-Hèl Maras and Andreas Alexandrou. De- termining Authenticity of Video Evidence in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Deepfakes. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 2019

    2019

  79. [86]

    The Emergence of DeepFake Technology: A Review

    Mika Westerlund. The Emergence of DeepFake Technology: A Review. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(11), 2019

    2019

  80. [87]

    Confronting Deepfakes: A Social and Technical Perspective

    Hany Farid. Confronting Deepfakes: A Social and Technical Perspective. Current Issues In Tourism, 2019

    2019

  81. [88]

    How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability

    Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18 (1):59–82, 2006

    2006

  82. [89]

    Snowball Sampling

    Charlie Parker, Sam Scott, and Alistair Geddes. Snowball Sampling. SAGE Research Methods Foun- dations, 2019

    2019

  83. [90]

    Vasa-1: Lifelike Audio- Driven Talking Faces Generated in Real Time.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10667, 2024

    Sicheng Xu, Guojun Chen, Yu-Xiao Guo, Jiaolong Yang, Chong Li, Zhenyu Zang, Yizhong Zhang, Xin Tong, and Baining Guo. Vasa-1: Lifelike Audio- Driven Talking Faces Generated in Real Time.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10667, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2):77–101, 2006

    2006

  85. [92]

    Victim-Offender Overlap: The Identity Transformations Experienced by Trafficked Chinese Workers Escaping from Pig-Butchering Scam Syndicate

    Fangzhou Wang. Victim-Offender Overlap: The Identity Transformations Experienced by Trafficked Chinese Workers Escaping from Pig-Butchering Scam Syndicate. Trends in Organized Crime, pages 1–32, 2024

    2024

  86. [93]

    The Malicious Use of AI- based Deepfake Technology as the New Threat to Psychological Security and Political Stability

    Konstantin A Pantserev. The Malicious Use of AI- based Deepfake Technology as the New Threat to Psychological Security and Political Stability. Cy- ber Defence in the Age of AI, Smart Societies and Augmented Humanity, pages 37–55, 2020

    2020

  87. [94]

    Privacy by Design: The Seven Foundational Principles

    Ann Cavoukian et al. Privacy by Design: The Seven Foundational Principles. IAPP Resource Center , 2021

    2021

  88. [95]

    Developing and Validating Trust Measures for E-Commerce: An Integrative Typol- ogy

    D Harrison McKnight, Vivek Choudhury, and Charles Kacmar. Developing and Validating Trust Measures for E-Commerce: An Integrative Typol- ogy. Information Systems Research, 13(3):334–359, 2002

    2002

  89. [96]

    Comprehensive Sur- vey: Biometric User Authentication Application, Evaluation, and Discussion

    Reem Alrawili, Ali Abdullah S AlQahtani, and Muhammad Khurram Khan. Comprehensive Sur- vey: Biometric User Authentication Application, Evaluation, and Discussion. Computers and Electri- cal Engineering, 119:109485, 2024

    2024

  90. [97]

    Understanding User Perception of Biometric Privacy in the Era of Generative AI

    Srihari Srinivasan. Understanding User Perception of Biometric Privacy in the Era of Generative AI. In 2023 4th International Conference on Communi- cation, Computing and Industry 6.0 (C216), pages 01–06. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  91. [98]

    How do Users Perceive Deepfake Personas? Investigating the Deepfake User Perception and Its Implications for Human-Computer Interaction

    Ilkka Kaate, Joni Salminen, Soon-Gyo Jung, Hind Almerekhi, and Bernard J Jansen. How do Users Perceive Deepfake Personas? Investigating the Deepfake User Perception and Its Implications for Human-Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the 15th Biannual Conference of the Itali...

    2023

  92. [99]

    Facial Micro-Expressions as a Soft Biometric for Person Recognition

    Usman Saeed. Facial Micro-Expressions as a Soft Biometric for Person Recognition. Pattern Recogni- tion Letters, 143:95–103, 2021

    2021

  93. [101]

    Dynamic Biometrics: The Case for a Real-Time Solution to the Problem of Access Control, Privacy and Security

    Steven J Simske. Dynamic Biometrics: The Case for a Real-Time Solution to the Problem of Access Control, Privacy and Security. In 2009 First IEEE International Conference on Biometrics, Identity and Security (BIdS), pages 1–10. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  94. [102]

    FaceForensics++: Learning to Detect Manipulated Facial Images

    Andreas Rössler, Davide Cozzolino, Luisa Verdo- liva, Christian Riess, Justus Thies, and Matthias Niessner. FaceForensics++: Learning to Detect Manipulated Facial Images. In 2019 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1–11, 2019

    2019

  95. [103]

    Privacy Norms for Smart Home Personal Assistants

    Noura Abdi, Xiao Zhan, Kopo M Ramokapane, and Jose Such. Privacy Norms for Smart Home Personal Assistants. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–14, 2021

    2021

  96. [104]

    Governing Cross- Border Data Flows: International Trade Agreements and Their Limits

    Yik-Chan Chin and Jingwu Zhao. Governing Cross- Border Data Flows: International Trade Agreements and Their Limits. Laws, 11(4):63, 2022

    2022

  97. [105]

    Don’t Fence Me In: Reforming Trade and Investment Law to Better Facilitate Cross-Border Data Transfer.Yale JL & Tech., 19:182, 2017

    Andrew D Mitchell and Jarrod Hepburn. Don’t Fence Me In: Reforming Trade and Investment Law to Better Facilitate Cross-Border Data Transfer.Yale JL & Tech., 19:182, 2017

    2017

  98. [106]

    Global Data Governance at a Turning Point? Rethink- ing China-US Cross-Border Data Flow Regulatory Models

    Wanxiu Xu, Shuo Wang, and Xiaodong Zuo. Global Data Governance at a Turning Point? Rethink- ing China-US Cross-Border Data Flow Regulatory Models. Computer Law & Security Review , 55: 106061, 2024

    2024

  99. [107]

    Generative AI and Deep- Fakes: A Human Rights Approach to Tackling Harmful Content

    Felipe Romero Moreno. Generative AI and Deep- Fakes: A Human Rights Approach to Tackling Harmful Content. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 38(3):297–326, 2024

    2024

  100. [108]

    Behind the Deepfake: 8% Create; 90% Concerned

    Tvesha Sippy, Florence Enock, Jonathan Bright, and Helen Z Margetts. Behind the Deepfake: 8% Create; 90% Concerned. Surveying Public Exposure to and Perceptions of Deepfakes in the UK. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05529, 2024. 19 Identity Deepfake Threats to Biometric Authenticat...

    2024 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Mst Safia Akter and Pavel Ahmed. The Emergence of AI-Generated Deepfakes as New Tool for Gender- Based Violence Against Women: A Brief Narrative Review of Evidence and the Implications of the Techno-Feminist Perspective. Feminists@ Law, 13 (2), 2025

    2025

  102. [110]

    Selection Bias in Web Surveys

    Jelke Bethlehem. Selection Bias in Web Surveys. International Statistical Review , 78(2):161–188, 2010

    2010

  103. [111]

    Methods of Coping with Social Desirability Bias: A Review

    Anton J Nederhof. Methods of Coping with Social Desirability Bias: A Review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3):263–280, 1985

    1985

  104. [112]

    DynamicRead: Exploring Robust Gaze Inter- action Methods for Reading on Handheld Mobile Devices under Dynamic Conditions

    Yaxiong Lei, Yuheng Wang, Tyler Caslin, Alexan- der Wisowaty, Xu Zhu, Mohamed Khamis, and Juan Ye. DynamicRead: Exploring Robust Gaze Inter- action Methods for Reading on Handheld Mobile Devices under Dynamic Conditions. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM on Human-Computer Interactio...

    2023

  105. [113]

    The Role of Eye Gaze in Security and Privacy Applica- tions: Survey and Future HCI Research Directions

    Christina Katsini, Yasmeen Abdrabou, George E Raptis, Mohamed Khamis, and Florian Alt. The Role of Eye Gaze in Security and Privacy Applica- tions: Survey and Future HCI Research Directions. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems , pa...

    2020

  106. [114]

    Ras- mussen, and Ivan Martinovic

    Ivo Sluganovic, Marc Roeschlin, Kasper B. Ras- mussen, and Ivan Martinovic. Analysis of Reflexive Eye Movements for Fast Replay-Resistant Biomet- ric Authentication. ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security, 22(1):1–30, November 2018

    2018

  107. [115]

    Deep- Fakes, Phrenology, Surveillance, and More! A Tax- onomy of AI Privacy Risks

    Hao-Ping Lee, Yu-Ju Yang, Thomas Serban V on Davier, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sauvik Das. Deep- Fakes, Phrenology, Surveillance, and More! A Tax- onomy of AI Privacy Risks. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems, pages 1–19, 2024

    2024

  108. [116]

    Hello Me, Meet the Real Me: Audio DeepFake Attacks on V oice Assistants

    Domna Bilika, Nikoletta Michopoulou, Efthimios Alepis, and Constantinos Patsakis. Hello Me, Meet the Real Me: Audio DeepFake Attacks on V oice Assistants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10328, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Authenticate As You Go: From Exploring Smart Home Authentication with Daily Objects to Authenticating with Primary Tasks

    Verena Zimmermann, Stina Schäfer, Markus Dür- muth, and Karola Marky. Authenticate As You Go: From Exploring Smart Home Authentication with Daily Objects to Authenticating with Primary Tasks. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interac- tion, 2024

    2024

  110. [118]

    It would probably turn into a social faux-pas

    Parth Kirankumar Thakkar, Shijing He, Shiyu Xu, Danny Yuxing Huang, and Yaxing Yao. “It would probably turn into a social faux-pas”: Users’ and By- standers’ Preferences of Privacy Awareness Mecha- nisms in Smart Homes. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factor...

    2022

  111. [119]

    Security and Privacy Perspectives of People Living in Shared Home Environments

    Nandita Pattnaik, Shujun Li, and Jason RC Nurse. Security and Privacy Perspectives of People Living in Shared Home Environments. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8 (CSCW2):1–39, 2024

    2024

  112. [120]

    TEO: Ephemeral Ownership for IOT Devices to Provide Granular Data Control

    Han Zhang, Yuvraj Agarwal, and Matt Fredrikson. TEO: Ephemeral Ownership for IOT Devices to Provide Granular Data Control. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications and Services, 2022

    2022

  113. [121]

    Ethical and Privacy Challenges of Gen- erative AI

    Chandrasekhar Uddagiri and Bala Venkateswarlu Isunuri. Ethical and Privacy Challenges of Gen- erative AI. In Generative AI: Current Trends and Applications, pages 219–244. 2024

    2024

  114. [122]

    Fortify the Truth: How to Defend Human Rights in an Age of Deepfakes and Genera- tive AI

    Sam Gregory. Fortify the Truth: How to Defend Human Rights in an Age of Deepfakes and Genera- tive AI. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 15(3): 702–714, 2023

    2023

  115. [123]

    Beyond a Rea- sonable Doubt? Audiovisual Evidence, AI Manipu- lation, DeepFakes, and the Law

    Yvonne Apolo and Katina Michael. Beyond a Rea- sonable Doubt? Audiovisual Evidence, AI Manipu- lation, DeepFakes, and the Law. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 5(2):156–168, 2024. A Survey Data Analysis A.1 Biometric Authentication Usage A.2 Demographic Differences...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.