4 ms·
I think that makes it an even more fascinating gray area, actually. It's exactly the important case where the hair needs to be split. Using a technology like t
by darawk 5y ago
I think that makes it an even more fascinating gray area, actually. It's exactly the important case where the hair needs to be split.
Using a technology like this for removing leaked private photos is one thing. Using it to enforce simple copyright is a whole other matter. If this were being deployed as a copyright enforcement tool, absolutely everyone here would be livid.
So, the question then is, if its used to censor a nudge image, but that image had been originally uploaded with consent, is that a matter of privacy, or copyright? And if it's merely a matter of copyright, is it appropriate to use this technology in that context?
- HPsquared 5y agoIt sounds like a contract between the sender and the receiver of the images, much like an NDA. Edit: the problem there is, if something under NDA finds its way into public view, and there are several different parties that could have leaked it (i.e. the leaker 8s not identified), what actions can then be taken? It's pretty much unenforceable at that point to anyone who didn't sign the agreement. Hence the need for this new system, I guess.
- darawk 5y agoSorry, I was referring to the case of publicly published images that the author/subject no longer wishes to be public. E.g. A person posts nude images on OnlyFans, and later regrets it. I think the case where someone transmits such images in private, and then they are leaked, is exactly what this tech. is designed for.
- HPsquared 5y agoThat's what I was discussing also, I speculated the site could have a Terms of Service clause for privacy protection. (It probably doesn't)