5 ms·

How are people thinking about this kind of attack? It was already viable to Photoshop someone's face into existing pornography. New tooling just lowers the barr

How are people thinking about this kind of attack? It was already viable to Photoshop someone's face into existing pornography. New tooling just lowers the barrier to execution. It seems like fighting an impossible battle since the tools are already widely available. I feel bad for people who are harmed by the creation and publication of such content, but it's not obvious to me that it's possible to combat it effectively using the legal system. Then again, maybe such laws don't have to be completely effective, so maybe it's sufficient that sharing such content cannot be done publicly in order to deter the most obvious abuses. Do you think in the very long term we'll remain so attached to protecting our likeness or will continued digitization of reality bring forth a loosening of such cultural norms?

Eisenstein 3y ago
> It seems like fighting an impossible battle since the tools are already widely available. People can do lots of things easily and are prevented by the legal system. I don't agree with the part of the law that makes this a crime if it isn't shared (who is being hurt in that instance?) but using an argument that essentially says 'it is hard to prevent people from doing something so don't even bother criminalizing it' is nonsense.
deadbunny 3y ago
Photoshop takes time and skill. AI takes a single source image and like 20 seconds. In the time it takes someone to come up with something in Photoshop the AI guy has made thousands of images.
- causal 3y ago
  And getting easier. Producing fully animated, voiced, real time deepfake videos will be trivial within a few years
bloopernova 3y ago
The barrier to creation is now far, far lower. Just a few face pictures and some idea of their body type, and you've got an instant nude. Children younger than 10 need to be taught the concept of consent and privacy, and how upsetting it is for people whose privacy and consent are violated. It ties into cliques and bullying, too. Teens can be brutal in their bullying and fake nude pictures will be added to the arsenal of abusive actions. Some of this stems from unrestricted usage of computers by minors who don't understand the impact their actions might have. Better parental tools and parents/guardians who take this topic seriously would be beneficial too. (I'm not arguing for some locked-down console instead of standard PCs, I just think that parents need to be able to know what their kids are doing online)
- chrisjj 3y ago
  > people whose privacy and consent are violated No privacy is violated by this act. Consent violation is nonsensical.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  > The barrier to creation is now far, far lower. That's not a good argument for creating this legislature. It couldn't really be enforced before (photoshopped images of celebrities), and it certainly can't be enforced now when any "script kiddie" will be able to generate terabytes worth of deepfakes in a week, and launch them to circulate on the internet anonymously. Unless you institute some draconian measures like only being able to access the internet with a passport and having 10% of your workforce work in censorship.
have_faith 3y ago
> New tooling just lowers the barrier to execution The word "just" here is doing a lot of work considering scale is usually the difference between something being harmless and dangerous. I think this is a blind spot with technical types as to the intent of the law. We ban things all the time that are easy to do, like shoplifting or graffiti. It's not a failing of those laws that marker pens are cheap and blank walls are everywhere. Worth noting, I haven't read the proposed law in question and don't have an opinion on it yet. I just don't think the reasoning of something being easy means we shouldn't attempt to legislate it if it has demonstrable harm to society.
derefr 3y ago
> It was already viable to Photoshop someone's face into existing pornography. New tooling just lowers the barrier to execution. Consider libel laws. (Because, if you think about it, "explicit deepfakes" are essentially "visual libel" — scandalous claims made through visual rather than written "evidence.") For a statement to be considered libellous, it has to be false, known as false to the writer/distributor of the statement, and written/distributed with an intent to cause harm. But there's an implicit proposition there — that certain statements can cause harm. Which has its own requirements: for a statement to be potentially harmful, it has to make a claim that if believed would result in reputational damage; and it has to be convincing / be likely to be believed by the common man. A statement isn't libellous if it's prima-facie false — that is, if nobody is likely to believe it. Photoshopping someone's face onto some random person's body is easy enough to spot, that it has usually been considered (the visual equivalent of) a prima-facie false statement. A deepfake is only bad insofar as it becomes increasingly impossible to spot the problems with it, and so becomes (the visual equivalent of) a prima-facie true statement — actual libel.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  > Consider libel laws. Which country's libel laws. They are not all the same. The UK is famous for libel actions that would not be countenanced by US courts.
foogazi 3y ago
> I feel bad for people who are harmed by the creation and publication of such content, but it's not obvious to me that it's possible to combat it effectively using the legal system. This law is about giving victims the means to combat the harm done to them
- struant 3y ago
  In order for there to be a victim, the deep fake needs to be distributed and passed off as real. Creation alone harms exactly nobody.

Eisenstein 3y ago

> It seems like fighting an impossible battle since the tools are already widely available. People can do lots of things easily and are prevented by the legal system. I don't agree with the part of the law that makes this a crime if it isn't shared (who is being hurt in that instance?) but using an argument that essentially says 'it is hard to prevent people from doing something so don't even bother criminalizing it' is nonsense.

deadbunny 3y ago

Photoshop takes time and skill. AI takes a single source image and like 20 seconds. In the time it takes someone to come up with something in Photoshop the AI guy has made thousands of images.

causal 3y ago
And getting easier. Producing fully animated, voiced, real time deepfake videos will be trivial within a few years

bloopernova 3y ago

The barrier to creation is now far, far lower. Just a few face pictures and some idea of their body type, and you've got an instant nude. Children younger than 10 need to be taught the concept of consent and privacy, and how upsetting it is for people whose privacy and consent are violated. It ties into cliques and bullying, too. Teens can be brutal in their bullying and fake nude pictures will be added to the arsenal of abusive actions. Some of this stems from unrestricted usage of computers by minors who don't understand the impact their actions might have. Better parental tools and parents/guardians who take this topic seriously would be beneficial too. (I'm not arguing for some locked-down console instead of standard PCs, I just think that parents need to be able to know what their kids are doing online)

chrisjj 3y ago
> people whose privacy and consent are violated No privacy is violated by this act. Consent violation is nonsensical.
antisthenes 3y ago
> The barrier to creation is now far, far lower. That's not a good argument for creating this legislature. It couldn't really be enforced before (photoshopped images of celebrities), and it certainly can't be enforced now when any "script kiddie" will be able to generate terabytes worth of deepfakes in a week, and launch them to circulate on the internet anonymously. Unless you institute some draconian measures like only being able to access the internet with a passport and having 10% of your workforce work in censorship.

have_faith 3y ago

> New tooling just lowers the barrier to execution The word "just" here is doing a lot of work considering scale is usually the difference between something being harmless and dangerous. I think this is a blind spot with technical types as to the intent of the law. We ban things all the time that are easy to do, like shoplifting or graffiti. It's not a failing of those laws that marker pens are cheap and blank walls are everywhere. Worth noting, I haven't read the proposed law in question and don't have an opinion on it yet. I just don't think the reasoning of something being easy means we shouldn't attempt to legislate it if it has demonstrable harm to society.

derefr 3y ago

> It was already viable to Photoshop someone's face into existing pornography. New tooling just lowers the barrier to execution. Consider libel laws. (Because, if you think about it, "explicit deepfakes" are essentially "visual libel" — scandalous claims made through visual rather than written "evidence.") For a statement to be considered libellous, it has to be false, known as false to the writer/distributor of the statement, and written/distributed with an intent to cause harm. But there's an implicit proposition there — that certain statements can cause harm. Which has its own requirements: for a statement to be potentially harmful, it has to make a claim that if believed would result in reputational damage; and it has to be convincing / be likely to be believed by the common man. A statement isn't libellous if it's prima-facie false — that is, if nobody is likely to believe it. Photoshopping someone's face onto some random person's body is easy enough to spot, that it has usually been considered (the visual equivalent of) a prima-facie false statement. A deepfake is only bad insofar as it becomes increasingly impossible to spot the problems with it, and so becomes (the visual equivalent of) a prima-facie true statement — actual libel.

kwhitefoot 3y ago
> Consider libel laws. Which country's libel laws. They are not all the same. The UK is famous for libel actions that would not be countenanced by US courts.

foogazi 3y ago

> I feel bad for people who are harmed by the creation and publication of such content, but it's not obvious to me that it's possible to combat it effectively using the legal system. This law is about giving victims the means to combat the harm done to them

struant 3y ago
In order for there to be a victim, the deep fake needs to be distributed and passed off as real. Creation alone harms exactly nobody.