5 ms·

> Laura Farris, the minister for victims and safeguarding, said the creation of deepfake sexual images was “unacceptable irrespective of whether the image is sh

• Svip 3y ago
  > Under the legislation, anyone who creates such an image without consent will face a criminal record and an unlimited fine. I feel like "without consent" to be pretty key here.
  • oceanplexian 3y ago
    You don't have a right to consent to being part of an artwork. For example, even the King of England could not walk into a museum and demand they take a painting down because it's unflattering.
    • jncfhnb 3y ago
      And now you do have the right to consent to being in porn.
    • randomdata 3y ago
      Unless the King of England petitioned for law that gave him that right. Which is basically what we're seeing here.
      • Gloomily3819 3y ago
        And that would be an authoritarian measure.
        • randomdata 3y ago
          To petition change isn't authoritarian. That's the foundation of democracy.
          • kwhitefoot 3y ago
            The petitioning is not authoritarian but the measure is.
            • randomdata 3y ago
              In that sense, all laws are.
    • bilbo0s 3y ago
      Actually, you do. IF the artwork is porn. In fact, if you're not old enough, it's just flat out illegal. You'll go to prison for making that artwork. And you arguing that it's "art" is not going to find much resonance in US courts at least. You're likely to fail the Miller test if US citizens are the judges.
• dwighttk 3y ago
  For what it’s worth that is a bad vague principle
• jt2190 3y ago
  > Laura Farris, the minister for victims and safeguarding, said… Instead of looking for those answers in the text of Farris’ summary of the law, we should look at the text of the law itself. Edit: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511/publications https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511/publications probably has the text we're looking for, somewhere.
• rootusrootus 3y ago
  There's precedent for that already, it is not blazing any new territory. Mere possession of CSAM is very illegal.
  • Dig1t 3y ago
    The existence of a CSAM implies a crime was committed though, since there is no way to legally produce such an image. Possessing a CSAM image is pretty much the same as aiding/abetting the original crime. A private deepfake image is not the same.
    • Kranar 3y ago
      That's not true, the justification outlawing CSAM being the result of a crime is not the actual legal justification for banning it and it would not at all hold up in court. There are plenty of incredibly disturbing videos and images of some of the most gruesome crimes committed and they are lawfully accessible and obtainable on the open Internet, including some such images on Wikipedia. The documenting of a crime is not and has never been illegal.
    • asplake 3y ago
      Per jjgreen’s comment, in UK law, for CSAM, an actual child need not be involved. Same logic proposed for non-consensual deepfakes.
    • rootusrootus 3y ago
      You might be right, based on Kranar's comment. I thought that CSAM was illegal to artificially create, as well, which would be similar to a deepfake. On a related note, I assume there is already a lot of deepfake CSAM in certain circles. If that is ruled legal, it will make finding and prosecuting real life CSAM creators much more difficult. At least in the US.
    • numpad0 3y ago
      Depends. Some jurisdictions classify CSAM by end results, others by process. Where it's process oriented it's not CSAM unless a child is not physically abused.
• neom 3y ago
  1967, then Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau on the government and consenting adults in their bedrooms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OoqgGgmVmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OoqgGgmVmI I think the issue here is the between consenting adults part, deepfakes in this instance are probably not between consenting adults. I also think it's important to think about the reality of how this likely plays out. If someone deepfakes me and faps and I never find out and they never tell anyone, it would be quite hard for there to be action. So if someone is deepfaking you and you know about it, there must be a logical path there, and none of them look good for the deepfaker. Can't say I know where I land on the issue, and I've thought about it for days and hours.
  • floor2 3y ago
    Except the actual human being who resembles the deepfake image isn't actually involved at all. People are acting like a "deepfake of a person" is something different than a drawing, painting, song, poem or any other artistic creation inspired by, based on, or with elements drawn from a real person. "If someone is deepfaking you" is such a weird imaginary problem. Someone might be imagining you. Someone might see you in a coffee shop while writing a screenplay and use the outfit you're wearing to describe a character in their story. Who cares? If someone is committing fraud by trying to pass off a deepfake as a real photo, then we already have laws around fraud, defamation, harassment to cover that. If someone makes a deepfake that looks similar to a real person for their own amusement, that's no different than writing fan-fiction or sketching in a notebook.
    • 23B1 3y ago
      You should think long and hard about the second- and third-order effects.
      • catlover76 3y ago
        [dead]
      • chrisjj 3y ago
        No such thing. Distribution of an image is not an effect of its creation.
• bigbillheck 3y ago
  >"whatever done by consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is cool". For example, cooking meth.
• Grimblewald 3y ago
  For sure but for the otherwise innocent creator on an airgapped pc there is nothing to worry about. Who would ever know? I do think the other examples you gave have one significant and fundamental difference - no one would mistake those things as being real. The problem with deepfakes is these have a similar social impact and capcity for harm as real nudes do, only there is no element of consent. You could ruin someones life quite easily with deep fakes, but not with your lewd poetry or sketches. So it seems reasonable to me to ban these with a blanket ban. I would prefer we lived in a world where that wasnt neccesary, but for every technology you must imagine the most sinister and exploitative application and realise that someone will try that and worse. How do you even begin to combat deepfakes and the social problems they bring? how many bodies are considered acceptable until we get it right? Possibly, its best to over reach a little then relax the grip rather than to take it slow, given what is on the line for some.
  • sungho_ 3y ago
    I think the point is about the images which will never be shared No one wonders why they shouldn't spread fake nude photos of real people
    • Grimblewald 3y ago
      and again, if they will never be shared, there is not much to worry about. We do need tools to persecute people who failed on the 'never be shared' front. Be it theft or otherwise, if others get the material from them, it doesn't matter, it should be treated as guilty of producing with intent to distribute. This is for two reasons, the first being this way people cannot hide behind the 'oopsie' defense.Second, if you made compromising material of others without consent, your duty of care is through the roof. If it leaks, you are at fault, no matter how hard you tried to prevent it. You never had to make that material. There was no reason to make it other than a selfish self-centered personal pursuits of a hedonistic nature, now if its victimless I don't care personally but the moment your selfish self-centered behavior hurts others, you are a danger to society.
      • 3y ago
• causal 3y ago
  Because then people can and will create fine tunes of models trained on specific people and just share those instead. I'm worried we will soon hear about a girl bullied into suicide because of a model she was powerless to stop from spreading.
  • bilbo0s 3y ago
    It'll be about two seconds before creation of such models is declared an illegal act if a few suicides happen. sigh. I file this whole issue under: "This is why we can't have nice things". People who create models like that ruin everything for everyone.
• randomdata 3y ago
  The implication is that only one party has consented when these fakes are created, and therefore not all involved have given their consent. Courts have previously deemed cartoon imagery of children to be equivalent to a real child, so considering the deepfake to be a real person that needs to give consent is not without precedent.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• jncfhnb 3y ago
  The basic obvious issue is “can you draw porn of someone”. The implied answer here appears to be “no” and the reason this is deemed necessary is an emergent effect of scale of being able to do this at such volume and quality. Saying you can’t draw porn of people without regard to implied authenticity or medium seems somehow more reasonable to me.
  • ryandrake 3y ago
    There just seems to be so much gray area here. Where is the burden of proof? Can someone argue that the depiction is of a fictional person who just looks similar to Plaintiff? How similar is too similar? Who's the judge of similarity? What if the training data did not contain any pictures of Plaintiff and the results were just tuned until it looked like him/her? What if Plaintiff has a twin sibling or someone who looks just like him/her and that person consented? What a mess--who's going to litigate all of this?
    • jncfhnb 3y ago
      I don’t feel like anything is implying similarity is sufficient to make an artwork criminal. Although I might call out the opposite problem of making it a crime to request a sfw picture of a specific person and have the model generate something porny
    • numpad0 3y ago
      There's so much gray area because some people desperately wants porn banned than abuses and harms punished, and clarifying gray areas all the way removes side effects on purely generative porn. Personally I think head-swap porns should be handled with defamation logic than general anti-porn laws. I find it more likely that I would be disgusted by deepfake porn of mine if I were to become such public figure that warrants it, than appreciating it, but it feels weirder that local police would be deciding whether am I to like it or not.
      • jncfhnb 3y ago
        This is not a blanket ban on generated porn.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]