this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
429 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3209 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Rep. Joe Morelle, D.-N.Y., appeared with a New Jersey high school victim of nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes to discuss a bill stalled in the House.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 10 months ago (8 children)

I really wonder whether this is the right move.

This girl, and many others, are victims and I don't want to diminish that, but I for better or worse I just don't see how legislation can resolve this.

Surely deepfakes will be just different enough to the subject to create reasonable doubt that it depicts the subject.

I wonder whether, as deep fakes become commonplace, people might be more willing to just ignore it like any other form of trolling.

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 32 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It’s not trolling it’s bullying. You need to think beyond this being about “porn”. This is a reputational attack that makes the victim more likely to be further victimised via date rape, stalking, murder. These things already happen based on rumours, deepfakes images/videos will only make it worse. The other problem is that it’s almost impossible to erase once it’s on the internet, so the victim will likely never be free of the trauma or danger as the images/videos resurface.

Trolling / bullying is just semantics, which I don't think will help us very much.

I think the heightened risk of other crimes is... dubious. Is that conjecture?

Your position seems to be framed in the reality of several years ago, where if you saw a compromising video of someone it was likely real, while in 2024 the opposite is true.

Were headed towards a reality where someone can say "assistant, show me a deepfake of a fictitious person who looks a bit like that waitress at the Cafe getting double teamed by two black guys". I don't claim to know all the ethical considerations, but I do think that changing social norms are part of the picture.

I don't have any authority to assert when anyone else should feel victimised. All I know is that in my own personal case, a few years ago I would've felt absolutely humiliated if someone saw a compromising video of me, but with the advent of deep fakes I just wouldn't care very much. If someone claimed to have seen it I would ask them why they were watching it, and why in the world they would want to tell me about their proclivities.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 21 points 10 months ago

I hope it won't overregulate technology itself but instead would be ruled by already existing means about defaming people and taking photoes without their consent, sharing them. Plus, if she's a teen, it's a production of CSAM. This person had an illegal intent, just used a new tool not unlike others, just more efficient.

[–] loki_d20@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Surely deepfakes will be just different enough to the subject to create reasonable doubt that it depicts the subject.

That's a major assumption. Do people really think a school board will really consider that when a student creates a fake Only Fans of a teacher? A random University or Company doesn't even give reason for denying an application when they see any form of online nudity? People are lazy as fuck and will just move on to the next candidate or let someone go to save their own image rather than that off the victim.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 10 months ago

My point is, when it becomes as easy to generate deepfakes as it is to order your groceries, the question will become "why is the university searching for deepfakes of everyone"

[–] flipht@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think you're right if the goal is to stop them all together.

But what we can do is stop people from sending them around and saying that it's true/actually the person.

Once they've turned it from a art project into a weapon, it should have similar consequences to "revenge porn."

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago

I would think this would be covered by libel, slander, defamation type laws. The crime is basically lying about a persons actions and character.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

I don't know how strong the laws are on the topic but I feel this falls under harassment or libel. In most cases this will cause emotional distress and harm to a person's reputation. If you're trying to show off your AI skills you can use a subject that isn't real or depict a real person wearing clothes. This is clearly an attack in my mind.

[–] AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My dude there are people out there thinking they're in a relationship with Johnny fucking Depp because some Nigerian scammer sent them five badly photoshopped pictures. Step out of your bubble, maybe. This shit isn't easy to spot for the vaaaaaast majority of people and why would this lie with the victim to sort of clear their name or hope that idiots realize it's fake?

Especially with and around teenagers who can barely think further than their next meal?

Good lord.

WDYM "step out of your bubble"?

It's not a question of being able to detect whether or not a video is fake. When deepfakes become so prevalent that everyone's grandma understands that they're prevalent, it won't matter whether you can identify the video as fake.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Photos of a person can vary in subtle ways too, perhaps as a person ages or even just changes their makeup or something. It's not valid to require everything to be perfectly clear-cut in some objective way.

Life is subjective, which is why courts always try to take the mental state of the accused into account, things like whether malice was present, whether the accused was in a rational state of mind, etc. This is why we have first and second degree murder as two different things.

[–] Overzeetop@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I think it doesn't go far enough. Straight up, no one should be permitted to create or transmit the likeness of anyone [prior to, say, 20 years following their death] without their explicit, written permission. Make the fine $1,000,000 or 10% of the offender's net worth, whichever is greater; same penalty and corporate revocation for any corporation involved. Everyone involved from the prompt writer to the work-for-hire people should be liable for the full penalty. I can't think of a valid, non-entertainment (parody/humor), reason for non-consensual impersonation - and using it for humor or parody is a slippery slope to propaganda weaponization. There is no baby in this tub of bathwater.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure this is practically possible.

A $1m penalty is more or less instant bankruptcy for 99% of the population. It's probably not much of a deterrent for, say an 18 year old. In my jurisdiction I don't think there are criminal penalties higher than a few thousand dollaridoos. It doesn't matter whether you think this act is so aggregious that it deserves a penalty 1000 time higher than any other, my point is that it would be unenforceable ineffective.

Secondly, how do you determine whether an image is someone's likeness? Create any random image and surely it will look like someone, but that doesn't mean that creating that image violates that someone.

[–] Shazbot@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

The missing factor is intent. Make a random image, that's that. But if proven that the accused made efforts to recreate a victim's likeness that shows intent. Any explicit work by the accused with the likeness would be used to prove the charges.

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah, just like the FBI warnings on VHS tapes about massive fines and jail time stopped us from copying them in the 80s and 90s...

[–] AtmaJnana@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

no one should be permitted to create or transmit the likeness of anyone [prior to, say, 20 years following their death] without their explicit, written permission.

I dig the sentiment. I do. And If this were my own fantasy world, I'd agree. But unfortunately, we don't live in the timeline where that is considered even close to reasonable.

[–] nybble41@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

Correction: Fortunately, not unfortunately. A rule like that would prohibit any form of public / street photography, news videos, surveillance videos, family photos with random strangers in the background... it's not reasonable at all.