4 ms·

> For instance, if someone puts an acquaintance's face into a sex scene and distributes it online, then even if there's a huge "This is a deep fake" scrolling d

> For instance, if someone puts an acquaintance's face into a sex scene and distributes it online, then even if there's a huge "This is a deep fake" scrolling disclaimer across the video, that person may still feel as if they have been defamed. A lot of people might not like relinquishing the authoritarian reaction to control the fictional creative output of others when it specifically targets them in a negative and public manner, but unfortunately respecting freedom of speech demands that deep fakes be protected from civil or legal action. We have to adapt our laws to reality as technology changes it, not the other way around. However, if a deep fake is used to specifically target and harass an individual on a personal level, i.e. not parody/political speech but actually contacting and engaging with family/friends/associates of the victim in order to cause harm, then afaik that is already covered by existing harassment laws.

yayr 8y ago
> We have to adapt our laws to reality as technology changes it, not the other way around social norms and law as a consequence always have to strike the balance between personal freedom of [x] vs the others personal freedom of [x,y]. just because a technology exists, it doesn't mean it should be used in any way. As an extreme example let's take "knife technology", you just should not put that tech piece into any human body and see what happens... so it's clear where the balance is in this case. deep fake should be the same as any other human dignity vs. free speech discussion imo. There seem to be different norms in different countries too regarding this, it's not always authoritarian.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  The damage caused by stabbing someone with a knife is not the same as editing a video with someone's face.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Consider what happened to the pizza parlour named in the “Pizzagate” story (despite the named pizza parlour not having a basement), and consider what would’ve happened if someone had made a DeepFake with Clinton‘s face to “prove” the claims.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      We've been getting along alright so far with photoshop. This isn't fundamentally different.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        Not fundamentally, sure. It’s a matter of degrees, and of skill that will (eventually, not currently) no longer be required.
        weberc2 8y ago
        Sure, but we can cope with that. If we can look at a photo and think to ourselves, “perhaps it was photoshopped?”, why will we be unable to do the same for a video? Would we not be even more likely to do that if faking videos becomes trivial and presumably universally accessible? In particular the specific scenario I responded to seems like fear mongering.
    - corndoge 8y ago
      What would have happened?
      - creaghpatr 8y ago
        Law enforcement or FBI etc would likely have issued a statement to say they believe it's fake. It's just like the Birther situation, you can almost never disprove a conspiracy but you can have a trusted body reassure everyone that a specific piece of evidence is fabricated.
        kbenson 8y ago
        And you can give others tools to go after misinformation by making certain aspects illegal, so law enforcement has recourse before it gets too large. Recourse like notifying hosts and law enforcement when purposefully misleading information is posted, as this bill allows.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  For what it's worth, I kind of agree, this is a pretty big loophole that essentially makes revenge porn legal. It's gonna be about 2 seconds before you start seeing disgruntled exes of every kind putting up deep fakes of porn encounters. But I tend to file that under "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things". The reality is that when that happens, and we all know it will, the good legislators will be under ENORMOUS pressure to close that loophole, and that loophole will be closed. Same thing happened with regular revenge porn, it was "loophole legal" at first, then the law came down on it like a hammer because the pressure just grew too large. The amount of time behind bars that they give out for revenge porn is increasing even as we type. To be completely honest, I'm fairly certain this act won't pass muster as it's written specifically because the revenge porn loophole is in it. The combination of the anti-revenge porn ladies and the law enforcement people will just make this way too risky a "yes" vote for anyone in a competitive district.
  - kakarot 8y ago
    To quote my earlier comment: > if a deep fake is used to specifically target and harass an individual on a personal level ... then afaik that is already covered by existing harassment laws.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      The issue is, a deep fake, is clearly a parody. This can't be argued. That's the purpose of a deep fake at its root. So you need a more narrow definition. If I do a deep fake of Melania giving Trump a golden shower in Moscow, that goes way beyond parody, even though it is, technically, by definition, parody. So there is no way to say that is not a personal attack, AND there is no way to say that is not a parody. That's the loophole that needs to be closed. You can try to argue that showing a hot school teacher or some male cop performing oral on a roomful of men was only parody, but if you get away with it there will be about 20 seconds before the law is changed. All the activists and the law enforcement people will claim that we just can't have video of every ex-girlfriend, cop, school teacher, or boss in the nation involved in whatever sexual activity seems the most degrading.

yayr 8y ago

> We have to adapt our laws to reality as technology changes it, not the other way around social norms and law as a consequence always have to strike the balance between personal freedom of [x] vs the others personal freedom of [x,y]. just because a technology exists, it doesn't mean it should be used in any way. As an extreme example let's take "knife technology", you just should not put that tech piece into any human body and see what happens... so it's clear where the balance is in this case. deep fake should be the same as any other human dignity vs. free speech discussion imo. There seem to be different norms in different countries too regarding this, it's not always authoritarian.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
The damage caused by stabbing someone with a knife is not the same as editing a video with someone's face.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Consider what happened to the pizza parlour named in the “Pizzagate” story (despite the named pizza parlour not having a basement), and consider what would’ve happened if someone had made a DeepFake with Clinton‘s face to “prove” the claims.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    We've been getting along alright so far with photoshop. This isn't fundamentally different.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      Not fundamentally, sure. It’s a matter of degrees, and of skill that will (eventually, not currently) no longer be required.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        Sure, but we can cope with that. If we can look at a photo and think to ourselves, “perhaps it was photoshopped?”, why will we be unable to do the same for a video? Would we not be even more likely to do that if faking videos becomes trivial and presumably universally accessible? In particular the specific scenario I responded to seems like fear mongering.
  - corndoge 8y ago
    What would have happened?
    - creaghpatr 8y ago
      Law enforcement or FBI etc would likely have issued a statement to say they believe it's fake. It's just like the Birther situation, you can almost never disprove a conspiracy but you can have a trusted body reassure everyone that a specific piece of evidence is fabricated.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        And you can give others tools to go after misinformation by making certain aspects illegal, so law enforcement has recourse before it gets too large. Recourse like notifying hosts and law enforcement when purposefully misleading information is posted, as this bill allows.
bilbo0s 8y ago
For what it's worth, I kind of agree, this is a pretty big loophole that essentially makes revenge porn legal. It's gonna be about 2 seconds before you start seeing disgruntled exes of every kind putting up deep fakes of porn encounters. But I tend to file that under "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things". The reality is that when that happens, and we all know it will, the good legislators will be under ENORMOUS pressure to close that loophole, and that loophole will be closed. Same thing happened with regular revenge porn, it was "loophole legal" at first, then the law came down on it like a hammer because the pressure just grew too large. The amount of time behind bars that they give out for revenge porn is increasing even as we type. To be completely honest, I'm fairly certain this act won't pass muster as it's written specifically because the revenge porn loophole is in it. The combination of the anti-revenge porn ladies and the law enforcement people will just make this way too risky a "yes" vote for anyone in a competitive district.
- kakarot 8y ago
  To quote my earlier comment: > if a deep fake is used to specifically target and harass an individual on a personal level ... then afaik that is already covered by existing harassment laws.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    The issue is, a deep fake, is clearly a parody. This can't be argued. That's the purpose of a deep fake at its root. So you need a more narrow definition. If I do a deep fake of Melania giving Trump a golden shower in Moscow, that goes way beyond parody, even though it is, technically, by definition, parody. So there is no way to say that is not a personal attack, AND there is no way to say that is not a parody. That's the loophole that needs to be closed. You can try to argue that showing a hot school teacher or some male cop performing oral on a roomful of men was only parody, but if you get away with it there will be about 20 seconds before the law is changed. All the activists and the law enforcement people will claim that we just can't have video of every ex-girlfriend, cop, school teacher, or boss in the nation involved in whatever sexual activity seems the most degrading.