4 ms·

If they'd cut out their classmate's head from their yearbook photo and pasted it onto the body of a pornstar with elmer's glue would police have gotten involved

If they'd cut out their classmate's head from their yearbook photo and pasted it onto the body of a pornstar with elmer's glue would police have gotten involved? This type of bullying is as old as dirt. Bullies suck, and the kids who did this should get in some kind of trouble with the school and their parents, but this is not something police need to be involved in. The moral panic over deepfakes is ridiculous, but the endless push to give literal children police records for acting like dumb kids is what's actually dangerous.

meheleventyone 3y ago
The article describes them as teens so they’re almost certainly old enough to experience some more serious repercussions for sexual harassment. It’s the old as dirt behaviour that this is “acting like dumb kids” so it should slide that helps perpetuate this sort of thing.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > It’s the old as dirt behaviour that this is “acting like dumb kids” so it should slide that helps perpetuate this sort of thing. I never said it "should slide". This sort of behaviour is common in children and childhood is exactly the time to teach them to be better. This is a matter for the school and the parents to handle. There is zero reason for police to be involved in any of it.
  - sidlls 3y ago
    That depends on the extent of the harm. Some bullying is “mild” and recoverable. Assault is another matter. Reaching for the law as the first step is not a good idea, but excluding the possibility simply because they’re minors would be a mistake.
    - irrational 3y ago
      I just reread the article. Where are you seeing that someone was assaulted?
      - sidlls 3y ago
        I was responding to the parent comment, not addressing contents of the article (except insofar as there is overlap).
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    If you just shrug it off as “bullying” but I’m not convinced this behaviour is so innocent and I suspect that at some point between the age of 13-19 as in this case there should be more serious repercussions.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > If you just shrug it off as “bullying” It is literally bullying > I suspect that at some point between the age of 13-19 as in this case there should be more serious repercussions. Child development doesn't advance on a set schedule. Kids at the same age can be at vastly different levels of maturity and even older kids often make stupid choices carelessly. It's part of growing up. Their brains are a work in progress and that applies most to the parts that help them make good choices (https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/The-Teen-Brain-Behavior-Problem-Solving-and-Decision-Making-095.aspx https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Fam...). That doesn't mean that kids can't make good choices, but it does mean we need to expect them to make terrible ones from time to time. As adults, it's our job to show them how they screwed up and set them right, but destroying their lives when their brains let them down isn't helping anyone. Children need teaching and guidance as they grow up, not prison sentences or sex offender status. We gain nothing by treating children like criminals for acting like kids.
      - meheleventyone 3y ago
        Great we should assess the child on a case by case basis as part of any investigation. That’s said within those age ranges, depending where you are you can both pass the age of consent and age of majority. As people age towards adulthood we should increase their responsibility and accountability particularly when they hurt someone. Sexual harassment isn’t this fluffy, “nothing” thing where other children didn’t get hurt.
      - friend_and_foe 3y ago
        Dude, the amount of people that want some boys to go to jail for what amounts to a doodle using advanced drawing technology is crazy. Glad to see some sanity left in the world.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  Are you trying to argue they’re either not kids, or not dumb? Because otherwise this sounds like a perfectly accurate characterization.
j45 3y ago
The spread of a sheet of paper, is different than a digital sheet of paper, is different than a digitally stored video. The moral panic might be ridiculous but taking some time to research the impacts so far should be a little sobering to a generalization of an interpreted generalization. In this case, an extremely straw law might go a bit further than trying to suppress or control technology.
autokad 3y ago
they need it so they can police us from making copyrighted material. that's all its about.
kibibu 3y ago
You don't see a tangible difference in the detectability of the fake being a factor? The glued on photo will always be uncanny, but deepfake will not.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > glued on photo will always be uncanny, but deepfake will not Eh, this is still a civil matter. Unless the picture was made for the purpose of harassment, there is no ill will we can presuppose the perpetrators had towards the victim. Just immense immaturity and a lack of judgement and empathy. Judgement and empathy can be taught. (If it was done with the intent of causing distress, i.e. cruelly, it's a matter for the police.)
  - hhh 3y ago
    Did you read the article? It states they created the images and were sharing them. This 'boys will be boys' mentality contributes to these things.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Did you read the article? It states they created the images and were sharing them. I'd need to see more to conclude harassment, i.e. proof of intent to cause psychological harm, versus teasing without any clue about the impacts of one's actions. > 'boys will be boys' mentality I don't think this is equivalent. This is immature kids playing with new technology and pushing the boundaries of decency with it. Without proof of intended malice, or evidence of actual harm, it's not a matter for criminal procedure.
      - inetknght 3y ago
        > proof of intent to cause psychological harm, versus teasing without any clue about the impacts of one's actions Teasing, whether you have a clue or not, is intent to cause psychological harm. > Without proof of intended malice, or evidence of actual harm, it's not a matter for criminal procedure. I concur. However I think it absolutely is grounds for a civil matter.
jltsiren 3y ago
The act of creating something is usually just irrelevant tinkering. Discussions like this on HN tend to overemphasize the importance of creation, probably because most of us have jobs where we are supposed to create something. But the real-world consequences of creation usually don't come from what was created or how it was created, but from distributing the creation. And that's what laws should be concerned about. Creating something for your private consumption is usually a private matter. Distributing it should be judged according to the potential harm, as well as to potential legitimate uses.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Distributing it should be judged according to the potential harm I'll admit that showing your buddies a deepfake/photoshop/cut and paste job of that one kid you hate from social studies is very different from creating a website or fake social media profile where the whole world can see it. In this case, it seems like some pics were shared with classmates who deleted the photos when they were caught and now the police can't even find copies to see what all the fuss was about, but the internet adds an opportunity for harms that extend far beyond the classroom. There might be some instances where a situation requires intervention beyond parents and teachers, but I see no evidence that this was one of them.
underseacables 3y ago
I seem to recall, there was a case where a man was convicted of child pornography, because he cut out pictures of children's faces, and glued them onto the bodies of adult porn actors.
- autoexec 3y ago
  That seems kind of wrong to me too, but the main thing that differentiates it is that the person in that case was an adult. We know that kids are going to do stupid things and childhood is the time to teach them to be better. It's not helping anyone to ruin a kid's life for acting like a child.
mikotodomo 3y ago
Whaaaaaaa? How should it be legal to imagine minors naked? And in this case there is proof in the form of the child pornography they distributed.
- averageRoyalty 3y ago
  > How should it be legal to imagine minors naked? Dicey grounds here, but it should be legal to imagine _anything_. Thoughtcrimes are always wrong, and there never should be any law on what you can think or imagine.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    If it were a crime we'd likely have to repeatedly arrest every single student until they got out of high school. The curiosity of children and the hormones of puberty make the crime of imaging a certainty.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  Every single human adult alive today has imagined minors naked, and particularly in a sexualized way, including you. We were all teenagers once, and in the company of other teenagers whom we were attracted to.

meheleventyone 3y ago

The article describes them as teens so they’re almost certainly old enough to experience some more serious repercussions for sexual harassment. It’s the old as dirt behaviour that this is “acting like dumb kids” so it should slide that helps perpetuate this sort of thing.

autoexec 3y ago
> It’s the old as dirt behaviour that this is “acting like dumb kids” so it should slide that helps perpetuate this sort of thing. I never said it "should slide". This sort of behaviour is common in children and childhood is exactly the time to teach them to be better. This is a matter for the school and the parents to handle. There is zero reason for police to be involved in any of it.
- sidlls 3y ago
  That depends on the extent of the harm. Some bullying is “mild” and recoverable. Assault is another matter. Reaching for the law as the first step is not a good idea, but excluding the possibility simply because they’re minors would be a mistake.
  - irrational 3y ago
    I just reread the article. Where are you seeing that someone was assaulted?
    - sidlls 3y ago
      I was responding to the parent comment, not addressing contents of the article (except insofar as there is overlap).
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  If you just shrug it off as “bullying” but I’m not convinced this behaviour is so innocent and I suspect that at some point between the age of 13-19 as in this case there should be more serious repercussions.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > If you just shrug it off as “bullying” It is literally bullying > I suspect that at some point between the age of 13-19 as in this case there should be more serious repercussions. Child development doesn't advance on a set schedule. Kids at the same age can be at vastly different levels of maturity and even older kids often make stupid choices carelessly. It's part of growing up. Their brains are a work in progress and that applies most to the parts that help them make good choices (https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/The-Teen-Brain-Behavior-Problem-Solving-and-Decision-Making-095.aspx https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Fam...). That doesn't mean that kids can't make good choices, but it does mean we need to expect them to make terrible ones from time to time. As adults, it's our job to show them how they screwed up and set them right, but destroying their lives when their brains let them down isn't helping anyone. Children need teaching and guidance as they grow up, not prison sentences or sex offender status. We gain nothing by treating children like criminals for acting like kids.
    - meheleventyone 3y ago
      Great we should assess the child on a case by case basis as part of any investigation. That’s said within those age ranges, depending where you are you can both pass the age of consent and age of majority. As people age towards adulthood we should increase their responsibility and accountability particularly when they hurt someone. Sexual harassment isn’t this fluffy, “nothing” thing where other children didn’t get hurt.
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      Dude, the amount of people that want some boys to go to jail for what amounts to a doodle using advanced drawing technology is crazy. Glad to see some sanity left in the world.
Aeolun 3y ago
Are you trying to argue they’re either not kids, or not dumb? Because otherwise this sounds like a perfectly accurate characterization.

j45 3y ago

The spread of a sheet of paper, is different than a digital sheet of paper, is different than a digitally stored video. The moral panic might be ridiculous but taking some time to research the impacts so far should be a little sobering to a generalization of an interpreted generalization. In this case, an extremely straw law might go a bit further than trying to suppress or control technology.

autokad 3y ago

they need it so they can police us from making copyrighted material. that's all its about.

kibibu 3y ago

You don't see a tangible difference in the detectability of the fake being a factor? The glued on photo will always be uncanny, but deepfake will not.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> glued on photo will always be uncanny, but deepfake will not Eh, this is still a civil matter. Unless the picture was made for the purpose of harassment, there is no ill will we can presuppose the perpetrators had towards the victim. Just immense immaturity and a lack of judgement and empathy. Judgement and empathy can be taught. (If it was done with the intent of causing distress, i.e. cruelly, it's a matter for the police.)
- hhh 3y ago
  Did you read the article? It states they created the images and were sharing them. This 'boys will be boys' mentality contributes to these things.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Did you read the article? It states they created the images and were sharing them. I'd need to see more to conclude harassment, i.e. proof of intent to cause psychological harm, versus teasing without any clue about the impacts of one's actions. > 'boys will be boys' mentality I don't think this is equivalent. This is immature kids playing with new technology and pushing the boundaries of decency with it. Without proof of intended malice, or evidence of actual harm, it's not a matter for criminal procedure.
    - inetknght 3y ago
      > proof of intent to cause psychological harm, versus teasing without any clue about the impacts of one's actions Teasing, whether you have a clue or not, is intent to cause psychological harm. > Without proof of intended malice, or evidence of actual harm, it's not a matter for criminal procedure. I concur. However I think it absolutely is grounds for a civil matter.

jltsiren 3y ago

The act of creating something is usually just irrelevant tinkering. Discussions like this on HN tend to overemphasize the importance of creation, probably because most of us have jobs where we are supposed to create something. But the real-world consequences of creation usually don't come from what was created or how it was created, but from distributing the creation. And that's what laws should be concerned about. Creating something for your private consumption is usually a private matter. Distributing it should be judged according to the potential harm, as well as to potential legitimate uses.

autoexec 3y ago
> Distributing it should be judged according to the potential harm I'll admit that showing your buddies a deepfake/photoshop/cut and paste job of that one kid you hate from social studies is very different from creating a website or fake social media profile where the whole world can see it. In this case, it seems like some pics were shared with classmates who deleted the photos when they were caught and now the police can't even find copies to see what all the fuss was about, but the internet adds an opportunity for harms that extend far beyond the classroom. There might be some instances where a situation requires intervention beyond parents and teachers, but I see no evidence that this was one of them.

underseacables 3y ago

I seem to recall, there was a case where a man was convicted of child pornography, because he cut out pictures of children's faces, and glued them onto the bodies of adult porn actors.

autoexec 3y ago
That seems kind of wrong to me too, but the main thing that differentiates it is that the person in that case was an adult. We know that kids are going to do stupid things and childhood is the time to teach them to be better. It's not helping anyone to ruin a kid's life for acting like a child.

mikotodomo 3y ago

Whaaaaaaa? How should it be legal to imagine minors naked? And in this case there is proof in the form of the child pornography they distributed.

averageRoyalty 3y ago
> How should it be legal to imagine minors naked? Dicey grounds here, but it should be legal to imagine _anything_. Thoughtcrimes are always wrong, and there never should be any law on what you can think or imagine.
- autoexec 3y ago
  If it were a crime we'd likely have to repeatedly arrest every single student until they got out of high school. The curiosity of children and the hormones of puberty make the crime of imaging a certainty.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
Every single human adult alive today has imagined minors naked, and particularly in a sexualized way, including you. We were all teenagers once, and in the company of other teenagers whom we were attracted to.