4 ms·

Absolutely true, and not that you’re arguing for this but: Just because the technology is out there doesnt mean we throw our hands in the air and give up. Yes

Absolutely true, and not that you’re arguing for this but: Just because the technology is out there doesnt mean we throw our hands in the air and give up. Yes it’s there, it’s going to be used for most of the nefarious cases we can imagine, but that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate someone using our image against our will. In fact, I would imagine that the data privacy advocates I often see on hn should see this as a logical extension of the privacy protections they want to see across the web. No, Lyft employees should not be able to view our trip history willynilly. No, the NSA should not be able to gobble up all of our google searches for profiling us. And no, we should not have to suffer being put in porn against our will because we are a person in the public eye. This stuff should be treated like revenge porn, IMO. Functionally it’s the same even if the technical implementation is different

autokad 9y ago
i am on the fence. using my face, and making money off it without my permission seems wrong. however, what if the 'animated' porn star just happens to look like me? inevitably, a generated porn star will look like SOMEONE. for me, this is getting murky. then there is the case that the program generates porn for me. if i privately generate porn using a famous person's image, to me - thats my right. no different than me fantasizing about them in my head.
- ordinaryradical 9y ago
  Just to clarify the conundrum in your second paragraph: this is definitively privileging your privacy over someone else’s. What you do in private is your business, yes, but that doesn’t give you the right to be a voyeur simply because you are doing so in seclusion. That’s why I think this is a poor argument.
  - autokad 9y ago
    voyeur: "a person who gains sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity." is not illegal. its kinda the very definition of watching porn. i wouldnt be violating their privacy any more than taping a picture to a pillow and humping it. are you claiming that is illegal? if not, then it feels like its the quality of the 'content' you are against, not the act.
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      Porn is consensual. Non-consensual voyeurism is usually a crime. (Generally turns on the expectation of privacy. If the watcher is observing from a non-publicly accessible location, they're probably guilty of voyeurism. Watching people go at it in a hotel room from the office across the street, generally wouldn't be a crime. Watching a non-consenual video recording generally wouldn't be a criminal act for the observer but would be a criminal act by the recorder, but this also depends on the content of the recording.)
  - drusepth 9y ago
    Would you make that same argument toward someone fantasizing about someone in their mind? The two seem parallel to me; I would guess most people are either morally for or against both (even though, yes, one is way more extreme than the other), but I'm super curious about whether/why someone might think e.g. imagination is fine but private visualizations aren't (or vice versa).
fwsgonzo 9y ago
Yep, I completely agree. We need to draw a line between what's real and what's not. I could easily see teenagers use images of their crushes in an "app" that makes their dreams come true. Let's not go there. I know you tech community, drooling at the $$$ in this.
fibers 9y ago
>No, Lyft employees should not be able to view our trip history willynilly. No, the NSA should not be able to gobble up all of our google searches for profiling us. And no, we should not have to suffer being put in porn against our will because we are a person in the public eye. These are centralized entities. In theory it is very easy to implement sound internal controls surrounding the access of that type of data given audit logs or whatever. The issue with deepfakes is that given a reasonable stack of images, anyone can produce their own porn. If you're a woman with many many photos on a public instagram account you can be a likely target given that anyone can go ahead and scrap your images. However, if you're one of the millions of wives that doesn't have a large presence on social media, then the deepfake can easily be tracked back to the spouse who has access to that private stack of photos. The normal caveats apply: you need access to a gpu, probably access to Tor to download the source in case github shuts the repos, etc etc. But when there is a will there is a way.
flukus 9y ago
> In fact, I would imagine that the data privacy advocates I often see on hn should see this as a logical extension of the privacy protections they want to see across the web. The question is whether or not my likeness is my data, which I don't think has ever been settled. Anyone can take a photo of me in public and the photographer owns the copyright. Are security cameras recording me violating my privacy? On the other hand, football players have to be paid to have their likeness appear in games. I think this might be the catalyst to resolve these issues once and for all.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  The photographer owns the copyright in the photo, but not the right to use your likeness contained in the photo without your permission (likeness rights are also referred to as model rights). This means that you can demand money if the photographer sells that photo to anyone, especially if the sale is for commercial use.
  - Digory 9y ago
    TMZ and other paparazzi would not exist if this were the rule. I think some states recognize a limited right to control aspects of your likeness, but not nearly as broad as this.
- danso 9y ago
  Yes, the photographer owns the photo. They do not own your likeness or have the right to use it as they wish unless you signed a model contract with them.

autokad 9y ago

i am on the fence. using my face, and making money off it without my permission seems wrong. however, what if the 'animated' porn star just happens to look like me? inevitably, a generated porn star will look like SOMEONE. for me, this is getting murky. then there is the case that the program generates porn for me. if i privately generate porn using a famous person's image, to me - thats my right. no different than me fantasizing about them in my head.

ordinaryradical 9y ago
Just to clarify the conundrum in your second paragraph: this is definitively privileging your privacy over someone else’s. What you do in private is your business, yes, but that doesn’t give you the right to be a voyeur simply because you are doing so in seclusion. That’s why I think this is a poor argument.
- autokad 9y ago
  voyeur: "a person who gains sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity." is not illegal. its kinda the very definition of watching porn. i wouldnt be violating their privacy any more than taping a picture to a pillow and humping it. are you claiming that is illegal? if not, then it feels like its the quality of the 'content' you are against, not the act.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Porn is consensual. Non-consensual voyeurism is usually a crime. (Generally turns on the expectation of privacy. If the watcher is observing from a non-publicly accessible location, they're probably guilty of voyeurism. Watching people go at it in a hotel room from the office across the street, generally wouldn't be a crime. Watching a non-consenual video recording generally wouldn't be a criminal act for the observer but would be a criminal act by the recorder, but this also depends on the content of the recording.)
- drusepth 9y ago
  Would you make that same argument toward someone fantasizing about someone in their mind? The two seem parallel to me; I would guess most people are either morally for or against both (even though, yes, one is way more extreme than the other), but I'm super curious about whether/why someone might think e.g. imagination is fine but private visualizations aren't (or vice versa).

fwsgonzo 9y ago

Yep, I completely agree. We need to draw a line between what's real and what's not. I could easily see teenagers use images of their crushes in an "app" that makes their dreams come true. Let's not go there. I know you tech community, drooling at the $$$ in this.

fibers 9y ago

>No, Lyft employees should not be able to view our trip history willynilly. No, the NSA should not be able to gobble up all of our google searches for profiling us. And no, we should not have to suffer being put in porn against our will because we are a person in the public eye. These are centralized entities. In theory it is very easy to implement sound internal controls surrounding the access of that type of data given audit logs or whatever. The issue with deepfakes is that given a reasonable stack of images, anyone can produce their own porn. If you're a woman with many many photos on a public instagram account you can be a likely target given that anyone can go ahead and scrap your images. However, if you're one of the millions of wives that doesn't have a large presence on social media, then the deepfake can easily be tracked back to the spouse who has access to that private stack of photos. The normal caveats apply: you need access to a gpu, probably access to Tor to download the source in case github shuts the repos, etc etc. But when there is a will there is a way.

flukus 9y ago

> In fact, I would imagine that the data privacy advocates I often see on hn should see this as a logical extension of the privacy protections they want to see across the web. The question is whether or not my likeness is my data, which I don't think has ever been settled. Anyone can take a photo of me in public and the photographer owns the copyright. Are security cameras recording me violating my privacy? On the other hand, football players have to be paid to have their likeness appear in games. I think this might be the catalyst to resolve these issues once and for all.

gamblor956 9y ago
The photographer owns the copyright in the photo, but not the right to use your likeness contained in the photo without your permission (likeness rights are also referred to as model rights). This means that you can demand money if the photographer sells that photo to anyone, especially if the sale is for commercial use.
- Digory 9y ago
  TMZ and other paparazzi would not exist if this were the rule. I think some states recognize a limited right to control aspects of your likeness, but not nearly as broad as this.
danso 9y ago
Yes, the photographer owns the photo. They do not own your likeness or have the right to use it as they wish unless you signed a model contract with them.