>>6092966

More detailed link to the paper the article referenced on fooling radiologists into thinking you have cancer.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.03597

I think it is an interesting vulnerability that should be addressed because you could do damage to someone’s political career right before an election if it was leaked they had terminal cancer before the fake was figured out for example. But medically It would be very hard I think to get someone treated for cancer or to hide a cancer very long because of all the confirmatory tests and number of different machines, modalities (CT/MR/PET/US) or networks that would have to be compromised.

The type of cancers and scans the study was using are relatively easy to fake because it is like trying to photoshop an extra star into the night sky or hide a star. (Lung CT was the type of scan used so you are looking for white spots on a black background.)

We usually would biopsy something like that and the machine would have to generate fakes in real time while aiming a needle at the fake lesion, we would realize the problem when we couldn’t find anything to aim the needle.

Overall I think it would be a very hard and a shortly lived cancer scare. I can think of easier ways to fool someone into thinking they have a disease than deep faking radiology images. Use the security vulnerability to swap radiology, lab or pathology results with someone who really dose have the disease. Or even just make a fake report. We don’t use paper anymore so it would be easy enough to fake a report electronically signed and cause just as much of a scare until further tests showed it to be fake.

Although a mix of all the above might be a neat trick to get a criminal to leave an extradition free country in the hopes of receiving treatment for a rare cancer they didn’t really have....