5 ms·

This article keeps using the word "non consensual ", but I don't get it. Is it actually illegal to modify an image to add porn elements to it? If these models a

by dudul 3y ago

This article keeps using the word "non consensual ", but I don't get it. Is it actually illegal to modify an image to add porn elements to it? If these models are really trained on images that are shared on the internet what's the issuHollywood. Fake porn has been around for decades. When I was a kid it was easy to find fake porn of all major actresses in hollywood. Is it just that it's now easier to get and more realistic that makes it problematic?

Planktonne 3y ago
> This article keeps using the word "non consensual ", but I don't get it. Is it actually illegal 'Nonconsensual' and 'illegal' are different words.
neilk 3y ago
This is a common argument that technology-focused people make: - it was possible to do this before; - and we didn't do anything about it then; - the only difference now is that it's easier; - therefore, we have no justification to do anything about it now. The thing is, laws, regulations, and norms are not immediately willed into existence to precisely match harms. It costs a lot to formulate and enforce them. So, if there is one really weird guy who goes to great lengths to build a home nuclear reactor, we probably don't need new laws or practices against it. If suddenly home nuclear reactors are available for $20, we definitely do.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
  If nuclear reactor were suddenly available for 20 bucks then you should be jumping for joy!
  - pjc50 3y ago
    https://interestingengineering.com/culture/david-hahn-the-nuclear-boy-scout https://interestingengineering.com/culture/david-hahn-the-nu... A world of backyard reactors is a world of spiralling cancer rates, until someone develops enough backyard plutonium to build the backyard bomb.
  - neilk 3y ago
    Oh, definitely, but we'd also need some regulation. It's likely that we _can_ make home nuclear reactors that are pretty safe! We already pipe combustible gases into our homes in enough quantities to take out a city block. We cause multiple explosions per second in devices hurtling down the highway at 100mph. We have self-regulating hot water heaters, pressure cookers, and laptop batteries, all of which are bombs if mishandled. But with home nuclear reactors, the consequences for stupidity aren't just "and then their home burned down". It's more like "and then the neighborhood was uninhabitable for the next century". And when these devices are everywhere, we will start to encounter real outliers in humanity.
- version_five 3y ago
  I think the flip side of that is we also have to acknowledge when "the cat is out of the bag", "you can't unring a bell", pick your metaphor. Like with music, there was a historically brief period where distribution companies had a monopoly because the nature of the technology allowed artificial scarcity. That ended with the internet and digital music. We could (and did) try doubling down on enforcement efforts to support some unnatural state, or embrace it. And we ended up with streaming music that provides value by convenience instead of artificial scarcity. I don't have a vision for how the fake porn industry will shake out, but I know it's a waste of time to try and build walls to stop anything that's inevitable. That probably means tools that let people do what they want in their own homes, and norms about public sharing that will be enforced in most places but can be circumvented by those who are dedicated. That's not a moral judgement of that being an ideal state, its just realistic, and given resource scarcity, there are more important things for law enforcement to deal with.
terminous 3y ago
In California as of 2019, making fake porn of real people without their written consent is not a crime that will get you thrown in jail, but it is a violation of an individual's rights and you can be sued for damages, up to $150,000 per photo. It even means that Hollywood directors have to get written permission if they depict actors having sex when everyone was just wearing skin-colored underwear and using camera tricks. I think that's actually a good thing. About why this is now an issue if it's existed for decades? When I was a kid, it was easy to find all kinds of illegal stuff on the internet. That doesn't mean it was OK then or now. I don't think fake porn has been that mainstream until recently. There were some high-profile cases that raised the issue in the media. Personally, I believe that it was always a bad thing to photoshop someone's head onto a porn star's body without their consent. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB602 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/if-signed-by-governor-california-bill-54514/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/if-signed-by-governor-cali...
- frognumber 3y ago
  You're a Nazi. I think most of us will agree that was bad. If I wanted to make it worse, I could have used another n-word. However, neither of those was illegal. If I said that, other than to make a point, I might be socially ostracised, but I wouldn't pay a fine or go to jail. In most of these cases: - I'm very supportive of banning anything with a profit motive (e.g. the Hollywood directors example). I don't think corporations need the same rights as people. - Public disclosure / distribution has a lot more nuance -- in this case, I'm supportive of banning it, but in each case, we need a deeper conversation. - I am strongly opposed to banning anything resembling free speech in the privacy of one's home. If you're making porn of me on your computer, it stays on your computer, and I learn about it, it's not clear the government ought to have a right to help resolve our dispute. If it does, it should definitely be civil (not criminal), with damages set at e.g. $5000 and not $150,000.
  - terminous 3y ago
    My mistake in the wording. The California law creates a private right of legal action for intentional distribution, not creation.
pjc50 3y ago
Per other thread, the Scottish law prohibiting non-consensual distribution of "intimate" images uses the phrasing "shows or appears to show". So sufficiently realistic fakes that might be taken for real might be illegal, although there has not yet been a test case.
version_five 3y ago
It's just a new spin on an old moral panic. I found the tone of the article very hyperbolic. They act like they've unravelled a criminal conspiracy and evil AI is a big societal problem. And they present what they find, people making images of whatever as a kind of insinuation they're doing something wrong as opposed to concrete allegations. I think there should be rules about publishing fake images of someone without their permission, and in the community they profile there are. The rest is just trying to manufacture a story out of nothing. I'm curious who the intended audience of this is. Edit: I just saw someone posted the following story also from that site: why are sex toy vibration patterns so terrible https://www.404media.co/sex-toy-vibrator-pattern-design/ https://www.404media.co/sex-toy-vibrator-pattern-design/
nickthegreek 3y ago
Nonconsensual does not mean illegal, it means that not every party involved has agreed to the terms. Plenty of things are non-consensual and legal. Cops hate being recorded for example and regularly try to get people to turn off their cameras. I think this article is mostly about raising awareness, as it is not just celebs who are getting the porn treatment, but young women on tiktok. We have fully moved into uncharted territory. At the very least, the public needs to know this can happen so when someone deepfakes a local person they aren't tarred and feathered. Especially when this tech is used not for porn, but to make you say hate speech. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/03/14/racist-deepfakes-carmel-tiktok/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/03/14/racist-deep... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/14/us/raffaela-spone-victory-vipers-deepfake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/14/us/raffaela-spone-victory... https://www.fox26houston.com/news/houston-area-student-accused-of-creating-deep-fake-explicit-photos-of-teacher-sharing-them-online https://www.fox26houston.com/news/houston-area-student-accus...
- creer 3y ago
  This is a good point that revenge porn has been a thing, and harassment - with no need for these tools. And we are going to see more creative and probably more damaging uses of the new tools. I can see in particular people getting fired before any thought is put in trying to authenticate a bunch of images or a video.

by dudul 3y ago

Planktonne 3y ago

> This article keeps using the word "non consensual ", but I don't get it. Is it actually illegal 'Nonconsensual' and 'illegal' are different words.

neilk 3y ago

This is a common argument that technology-focused people make: - it was possible to do this before; - and we didn't do anything about it then; - the only difference now is that it's easier; - therefore, we have no justification to do anything about it now. The thing is, laws, regulations, and norms are not immediately willed into existence to precisely match harms. It costs a lot to formulate and enforce them. So, if there is one really weird guy who goes to great lengths to build a home nuclear reactor, we probably don't need new laws or practices against it. If suddenly home nuclear reactors are available for $20, we definitely do.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
If nuclear reactor were suddenly available for 20 bucks then you should be jumping for joy!
- pjc50 3y ago
  https://interestingengineering.com/culture/david-hahn-the-nuclear-boy-scout https://interestingengineering.com/culture/david-hahn-the-nu... A world of backyard reactors is a world of spiralling cancer rates, until someone develops enough backyard plutonium to build the backyard bomb.
- neilk 3y ago
  Oh, definitely, but we'd also need some regulation. It's likely that we _can_ make home nuclear reactors that are pretty safe! We already pipe combustible gases into our homes in enough quantities to take out a city block. We cause multiple explosions per second in devices hurtling down the highway at 100mph. We have self-regulating hot water heaters, pressure cookers, and laptop batteries, all of which are bombs if mishandled. But with home nuclear reactors, the consequences for stupidity aren't just "and then their home burned down". It's more like "and then the neighborhood was uninhabitable for the next century". And when these devices are everywhere, we will start to encounter real outliers in humanity.
version_five 3y ago
I think the flip side of that is we also have to acknowledge when "the cat is out of the bag", "you can't unring a bell", pick your metaphor. Like with music, there was a historically brief period where distribution companies had a monopoly because the nature of the technology allowed artificial scarcity. That ended with the internet and digital music. We could (and did) try doubling down on enforcement efforts to support some unnatural state, or embrace it. And we ended up with streaming music that provides value by convenience instead of artificial scarcity. I don't have a vision for how the fake porn industry will shake out, but I know it's a waste of time to try and build walls to stop anything that's inevitable. That probably means tools that let people do what they want in their own homes, and norms about public sharing that will be enforced in most places but can be circumvented by those who are dedicated. That's not a moral judgement of that being an ideal state, its just realistic, and given resource scarcity, there are more important things for law enforcement to deal with.

terminous 3y ago

In California as of 2019, making fake porn of real people without their written consent is not a crime that will get you thrown in jail, but it is a violation of an individual's rights and you can be sued for damages, up to $150,000 per photo. It even means that Hollywood directors have to get written permission if they depict actors having sex when everyone was just wearing skin-colored underwear and using camera tricks. I think that's actually a good thing. About why this is now an issue if it's existed for decades? When I was a kid, it was easy to find all kinds of illegal stuff on the internet. That doesn't mean it was OK then or now. I don't think fake porn has been that mainstream until recently. There were some high-profile cases that raised the issue in the media. Personally, I believe that it was always a bad thing to photoshop someone's head onto a porn star's body without their consent. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB602 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/if-signed-by-governor-california-bill-54514/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/if-signed-by-governor-cali...

frognumber 3y ago
You're a Nazi. I think most of us will agree that was bad. If I wanted to make it worse, I could have used another n-word. However, neither of those was illegal. If I said that, other than to make a point, I might be socially ostracised, but I wouldn't pay a fine or go to jail. In most of these cases: - I'm very supportive of banning anything with a profit motive (e.g. the Hollywood directors example). I don't think corporations need the same rights as people. - Public disclosure / distribution has a lot more nuance -- in this case, I'm supportive of banning it, but in each case, we need a deeper conversation. - I am strongly opposed to banning anything resembling free speech in the privacy of one's home. If you're making porn of me on your computer, it stays on your computer, and I learn about it, it's not clear the government ought to have a right to help resolve our dispute. If it does, it should definitely be civil (not criminal), with damages set at e.g. $5000 and not $150,000.
- terminous 3y ago
  My mistake in the wording. The California law creates a private right of legal action for intentional distribution, not creation.

pjc50 3y ago

Per other thread, the Scottish law prohibiting non-consensual distribution of "intimate" images uses the phrasing "shows or appears to show". So sufficiently realistic fakes that might be taken for real might be illegal, although there has not yet been a test case.

version_five 3y ago

It's just a new spin on an old moral panic. I found the tone of the article very hyperbolic. They act like they've unravelled a criminal conspiracy and evil AI is a big societal problem. And they present what they find, people making images of whatever as a kind of insinuation they're doing something wrong as opposed to concrete allegations. I think there should be rules about publishing fake images of someone without their permission, and in the community they profile there are. The rest is just trying to manufacture a story out of nothing. I'm curious who the intended audience of this is. Edit: I just saw someone posted the following story also from that site: why are sex toy vibration patterns so terrible https://www.404media.co/sex-toy-vibrator-pattern-design/ https://www.404media.co/sex-toy-vibrator-pattern-design/

nickthegreek 3y ago

Nonconsensual does not mean illegal, it means that not every party involved has agreed to the terms. Plenty of things are non-consensual and legal. Cops hate being recorded for example and regularly try to get people to turn off their cameras. I think this article is mostly about raising awareness, as it is not just celebs who are getting the porn treatment, but young women on tiktok. We have fully moved into uncharted territory. At the very least, the public needs to know this can happen so when someone deepfakes a local person they aren't tarred and feathered. Especially when this tech is used not for porn, but to make you say hate speech. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/03/14/racist-deepfakes-carmel-tiktok/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/03/14/racist-deep... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/14/us/raffaela-spone-victory-vipers-deepfake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/14/us/raffaela-spone-victory... https://www.fox26houston.com/news/houston-area-student-accused-of-creating-deep-fake-explicit-photos-of-teacher-sharing-them-online https://www.fox26houston.com/news/houston-area-student-accus...

creer 3y ago
This is a good point that revenge porn has been a thing, and harassment - with no need for these tools. And we are going to see more creative and probably more damaging uses of the new tools. I can see in particular people getting fired before any thought is put in trying to authenticate a bunch of images or a video.