4 ms·

al_borland (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39167506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39167506 ) posted this link earlier. It looks like the laws are b

al_borland (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39167506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39167506 ) posted this link earlier. It looks like the laws are being appropriately tailored not to "obscene" materials but toward "intimate" materials (where "intimate" supposes a right of privacy, regardless of whether fake or not). https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/01/sharing-deepfake-could-lead-to-lengthy-prison-time-under-proposed-law/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/01/sharing-deepfake... : the “Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act,” which seeks to "prohibit the non-consensual disclosure of digitally altered intimate images." Under the proposed law, anyone sharing deepfake pornography without an individual's consent risks damages that could go as high as $150,000 and imprisonment of up to 10 years if sharing the images facilitates violence or impacts the proceedings of a government agency.

_heimdall 3y ago
"Obscene" versus "intimate" both fall into the same trap of requiring more clear definition. In the first case one has to make a judgement call on whether they personally perceive something as obscene, and whether that means the other party was at fault for creating it. In the case of intimate, you have to define the word clearly and draw a line between what would and would not be considered intimate. For example, if a fake porn image was made to include a scene of the act happening in a large gathering or public place, does that dodge the word "intimate"? And can the viewer of the image decide whether it is intimate, or would that distinction depend on the feelings of the image's subject at the time it was taken? If the latter, how can that exist when the image was entirely generated and had no living subjects to question?
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  They helpfully define the term in the text of the proposed law. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3106/text?s=1&r=68 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3106... “(a) Definitions.—In this section: “(1) CONSENT.—The term ‘consent’ has the meaning given such term in section 1309. “(2) DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘depicted individual’ means an individual who, as a result of digitization or by means of digital manipulation, appears in whole or in part in an intimate digital depiction and who is identifiable by virtue of the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature, or from information displayed in connection with the digital depiction. “(3) DIGITAL DEPICTION.—The term ‘digital depiction’ means a realistic visual depiction, as that term is defined in section 2256(5) of title 18, United States Code, of an individual that has been created or altered using digital manipulation. “(4) DISCLOSE.—The term ‘disclose’ has the meaning given such term in section 1309. “(5) INTIMATE DIGITAL DEPICTION.—The term ‘intimate digital depiction’ means a digital depiction of an individual that has been created or altered using digital manipulation and that depicts— “(A) the uncovered genitals, pubic area, anus, or postpubescent female nipple of an identifiable individual; “(B) the display or transfer of bodily sexual fluids— “(i) onto any part of the body of an identifiable individual; or “(ii) from the body of an identifiable individual; or “(C) an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct. “(6) SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT.—The term ‘sexually explicit conduct’ has the meaning given the term in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 2256(2) of title 18, United States Code.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    > (2) DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘depicted individual’ means an individual who, as a result of digitization or by means of digital manipulation, appears in whole or in part in an intimate digital depiction and who is identifiable by virtue of the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature, or from information displayed in connection with the digital depiction "And who is identifiable" is doing some heavy lifting here and could be legally ambiguous. If I see someone rob a convenience store and believed the person to look like Al Pacino, does that make the person identifiable? What if I actually thought it was him, not just that it looked like him? In the case of fake porn, the creator can't know if one viewing it will think the person was modeled after Taylor Swift or if their intent was to actually create porn that would be identified by viewers as Swift. Is this morally and ethically a problem? Absolutely, in my opinion. But can this be codified into law that is clear enough to make sure you don't break the law? Absolutely not, as long as the law depends on whether a viewer believes the fake porn looks like Swift or is Swift. A person can't be reasonably expected to stay on the right side of a law that is defined by how someone will judge the creation later. Obviously its entirely different if the creator attempts to pass it off as the original person, in this case if someone created or distributed fake porn and claimed it actually was Swift.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      > "And who is identifiable" is doing some heavy lifting here and could be legally ambiguous. Sure, that's what a jury and/or judge is for. The defendant has a lot of potential defenses against a civil claim. The criminal portion of the law is tighter: : “(a) Offense.—Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, discloses or threatens to disclose an intimate digital depiction— :: “(1) with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, alarm, or cause substantial harm to the finances or reputation of the depicted individual; or :: “(2) with actual knowledge that, or reckless disregard for whether, such disclosure or threatened disclosure will cause physical, emotional, reputational, or economic harm to the depicted individual, The legal definition of "reckless": https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless_disregard https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless_disregard : reckless action is distinguished from negligent action in that the actor consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk, as opposed to merely being unreasonable. For example, in State v. Olson, a 1990 South Dakota Supreme Court decision, the court did not find a tractor driver who turned left at 5-15 mph and hit another car reckless because the prosecution could not prove that he was aware that there was an oncoming car.

_heimdall 3y ago

"Obscene" versus "intimate" both fall into the same trap of requiring more clear definition. In the first case one has to make a judgement call on whether they personally perceive something as obscene, and whether that means the other party was at fault for creating it. In the case of intimate, you have to define the word clearly and draw a line between what would and would not be considered intimate. For example, if a fake porn image was made to include a scene of the act happening in a large gathering or public place, does that dodge the word "intimate"? And can the viewer of the image decide whether it is intimate, or would that distinction depend on the feelings of the image's subject at the time it was taken? If the latter, how can that exist when the image was entirely generated and had no living subjects to question?

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
They helpfully define the term in the text of the proposed law. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3106/text?s=1&r=68 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3106... “(a) Definitions.—In this section: “(1) CONSENT.—The term ‘consent’ has the meaning given such term in section 1309. “(2) DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘depicted individual’ means an individual who, as a result of digitization or by means of digital manipulation, appears in whole or in part in an intimate digital depiction and who is identifiable by virtue of the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature, or from information displayed in connection with the digital depiction. “(3) DIGITAL DEPICTION.—The term ‘digital depiction’ means a realistic visual depiction, as that term is defined in section 2256(5) of title 18, United States Code, of an individual that has been created or altered using digital manipulation. “(4) DISCLOSE.—The term ‘disclose’ has the meaning given such term in section 1309. “(5) INTIMATE DIGITAL DEPICTION.—The term ‘intimate digital depiction’ means a digital depiction of an individual that has been created or altered using digital manipulation and that depicts— “(A) the uncovered genitals, pubic area, anus, or postpubescent female nipple of an identifiable individual; “(B) the display or transfer of bodily sexual fluids— “(i) onto any part of the body of an identifiable individual; or “(ii) from the body of an identifiable individual; or “(C) an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct. “(6) SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT.—The term ‘sexually explicit conduct’ has the meaning given the term in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 2256(2) of title 18, United States Code.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  > (2) DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘depicted individual’ means an individual who, as a result of digitization or by means of digital manipulation, appears in whole or in part in an intimate digital depiction and who is identifiable by virtue of the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature, or from information displayed in connection with the digital depiction "And who is identifiable" is doing some heavy lifting here and could be legally ambiguous. If I see someone rob a convenience store and believed the person to look like Al Pacino, does that make the person identifiable? What if I actually thought it was him, not just that it looked like him? In the case of fake porn, the creator can't know if one viewing it will think the person was modeled after Taylor Swift or if their intent was to actually create porn that would be identified by viewers as Swift. Is this morally and ethically a problem? Absolutely, in my opinion. But can this be codified into law that is clear enough to make sure you don't break the law? Absolutely not, as long as the law depends on whether a viewer believes the fake porn looks like Swift or is Swift. A person can't be reasonably expected to stay on the right side of a law that is defined by how someone will judge the creation later. Obviously its entirely different if the creator attempts to pass it off as the original person, in this case if someone created or distributed fake porn and claimed it actually was Swift.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    > "And who is identifiable" is doing some heavy lifting here and could be legally ambiguous. Sure, that's what a jury and/or judge is for. The defendant has a lot of potential defenses against a civil claim. The criminal portion of the law is tighter: : “(a) Offense.—Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, discloses or threatens to disclose an intimate digital depiction— :: “(1) with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, alarm, or cause substantial harm to the finances or reputation of the depicted individual; or :: “(2) with actual knowledge that, or reckless disregard for whether, such disclosure or threatened disclosure will cause physical, emotional, reputational, or economic harm to the depicted individual, The legal definition of "reckless": https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless_disregard https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless_disregard : reckless action is distinguished from negligent action in that the actor consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk, as opposed to merely being unreasonable. For example, in State v. Olson, a 1990 South Dakota Supreme Court decision, the court did not find a tractor driver who turned left at 5-15 mph and hit another car reckless because the prosecution could not prove that he was aware that there was an oncoming car.