5 ms·

Jail time for those caught distributing deepfake porn under new Australian laws

34 points by smcin 2y ago

smcin 2y ago
- Australia's proposed law criminalizes both creating and sharing (without consent) sexually explicit images that have been digitally created using artificial intelligence or other forms of technology. - Sharing, whether by email or personal message to an individual or to a mass audience on a private or open platform. There are already also laws against it in England and Wales, and ten US states (CA,FL,GA,HI,IL,MN,NY,SD,TX,VA). [0][1] [0]: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2024-01-30/these-states-have-banned-the-type-of-deepfake-porn-that-targeted-taylor-swift https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2024-01-30/... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography#Combatting_deepfake_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography#Combattin...
- senectus1 2y ago
  >or other forms of technology. Sooooo not JUST AI ? Is this another chink in the wall of "fair use"/"Parody" ?
  - fortran77 2y ago
    > Is this another chink in the wall of "fair use"/"parody" ? This is not the United States. There concepts of "fair use" and "Parody" with respect to free speech and copyright laws may not apply. Also, armor has chinks, not walls.
  - CJefferson 2y ago
    Do we really need the ability to create sexually explicit pictures of people? No right is absolute, and the reason I think this new law is needed is previously it was extremely difficult to produce photorealistic pictures of people, while now it’s trivial.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      So what if it is possible to generate photorealistic pictures? It’s still just art. An algorithm doesn’t change that.
      - geysersam 2y ago
        People are acting as if it wasn't possible to create realistic looking fake pornography featuring real people before diffusion models. Photoshop's been around for a while.
        smcin 2y ago
        There is a pretty obvious difference between a) schoolchildren (esp. minors) cyberbullying their classmates/ex-BFs/ex-GFs/relatives/teachers with still images vs b) AI apps/porn sites/ advertisers with $$$ budgets for AI creating lifelike deepfake porn videos of celebrities or user submissions, for profit, intentionally, as a business model. You'd expect the full weight of the proposed Australian law would be used against the latter not the former. Depends how they implement it. Here [0] is a US Politico article on both the explosion of this happening in US schools, and the very fragmented state-level legislative and police response to US cases ("20 states have laws... who gets [/doesn't get] disciplined, how minors are treated and who is responsible for taking images to the police — varies widely depending on the state.") Also, there are obvious civil-liberties privacy considerations (just like the long-running CSAM debate) about who [in Australia] will be mandated to scan users' images: telecomms companies, tech companies, the police or all of these? [0]: Politico: "AI is shockingly good at making fake nudes — and causing havoc in schools" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-schools-states-00160183 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-s...
        paulmd 2y ago
        that's generally the thrust of elvis laws, yes - I'm not sure they're coherent as a concept though. why is elvis impersonation "traditional" in a way that "dolly parton impersonation" is not? and let's not pretend like there wasn't always a significant commercial aspect, the elvis impersonator officiating your wedding wants to get paid.
  - anakaine 2y ago
    Australia has fair use copyright provisions, as well as parody. They are not protected via the same mechanism or via the same wording as the US. Now this said, no, this is not another chink in the armour. There is little to no fair use or parody that would withstand prosecution when it comes to deep fake pornography. One could try to make the argument that, for example, a media company may create a deep fake pornographic video for a skit. However, this is both in bad taste, flies afoul of content deceny laws, and the 'artwork' can readily be taken out of context and distributed as pornography in its own right. Australia has been quite good, if a bit slow, at enacting considered legislation to protect against exploitation of the individual. Our conservative facebook and sov cit crowd constantly bellyache about freedom of speech, forgetting that Australia does not have freedom of speech provisions, but rather a set of legal precedents, case law and various legal interpretations which provide similar, but with an ability for interpretation to enact various protections. They're very difficult to circumvent, but are actively used for things like this by governments of the day. Also, unlike the US, our justices are not elected by politicians, and they must not be aligned to a political party. So parliament could go rogue, but the laws would be challenged and shot down if in the opinion of the court they were illegal or eroded other legally decided precedent or interpretations.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > Also, unlike the US, our justices are not elected by politicians I'm pretty sure in practice they are elected by politicians. How do you think they are they appointed? They aren't elected directly and the alternatives I can come up with to political appointment are outrageous affronts to democracy.
      - defrost 2y ago
        In Australian states and in Australian federal courts the process is similar; to become a judge at level {X} there's a merit bar to pass (prior skills | qualifications) and prospective candidates apply for the position when vacancies appear (like other jobs). The applicants are assessed by state or federal peer committees who give advice to state or federal attorney generals (head lawyer) which is a qualified position held by someone who is elected (elected to represent a district, not elected to be attorney general). The Attorney General appoints Judges who apply and are qualified, those appointments can be appealed on various grounds. Eg: In the State of Western Australia: https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Two-new-Judges-appointed-to-bolster-the-District-Court-20230502 https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-La... 2 x District Court judges appointed by Quiggles : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) who's quite the chap, he was a lawyer for the police for a fair while until he turned and gave evidence on police corruption. In the Federal sphere: https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointments https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointme...
  - dudeinjapan 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
      lol
  - thih9 2y ago
    This would only affect sexually explicit parody / fair use.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    Parody means imitation for comedic purposes. There is nothing funny nor fair about creating deep fakes of women and distributing it to fellow students, colleagues etc.
- smcin 2y ago
  And here's an Australian article from [0], quoting some stats and an Australian academic. I couldn't easily find any legal expert analysis, or the text of the proposed bill. Much Australian media paywalls US search engines, so go read the full article: > Professor Nicola Henry, a socio-legal scholar at RMIT University in Melbourne... ran a survey last year of people who have had fake images shared and found that Australia had far higher rates of victims (3.7%) compared with the global average of 2.2%. Interestingly, her research also found that men were more likely to report being perpetrators as well as victims of deepfake pornography. “Unfortunately, there’s not a huge amount of research that’s been done to examine the extent or the impacts of deepfakes or AI-generated image-based abuse,” Professor Henry added. The government will also bring forward legislation in early August to outlaw the release of private information online with an intent to cause harm, known as doxxing. [0]: https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/six-years-jail-time-under-new-australians-laws-for-ai-porn-spreaders/news-story/e5630b3f9ac71d555fb06b6398369f71 https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/six-years-jail-tim...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
fifteen1506 2y ago
What if it is deepuncertain?
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Reminder that deepfake porn is just free speech. Someone expressing things that most people have in their heads, like fantasizing about some celebrity, shouldn’t be illegal. Claiming it’s real should be illegal - but that’s already covered by defamation law.
- threeseed 2y ago
  As stated in the title this is about distributing content. You are free to produce this content in the comfort of your own home.
  - moconnor 2y ago
    At what point does content distribution happen? If someone distributes a seed and prompt that reliably generate a deepfake of a celebrity using open source models and tools, is that covered? This is ultimately about compression, and the famous DeCSS t-shirt and illegal prime number[1]. Not taking a moral position here, but regulating distribution independently of creation for personal consumption seems difficult. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_primes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_prime...
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  If so, then maybe it should be defended on accessibility grounds? After all, it could be presented as helping people with aphantasia approximate what people with working visualization ability can literally do in their head. "Undressing someone with your eyes" is, apparently, not a metaphor for some (most?) people.
  - idle_zealot 2y ago
    > is, apparently, not a metaphor for some (most?) people. I take it you have aphantasia then? I wouldn't say it's "not a metaphor," as it's clearly not literal, but yes, most of the population can see at least faint images in their minds with some effort or when unfocused (daydreaming). The detail of the image and effort required to contruct and maintain it exists on a spectrum. But yes, people with visual imaginations have all "seen" images that have never been physically produced.
sed3 2y ago
> new criminal offence of sharing, without consent, sexually explicit images that have been digitally created using artificial intelligence or other forms of technology. It will be interesting to see how precisely the law is written. If the definition is too broad, it may limit use of soft pornography in advertisement and popular culture. I do not want to see yet another digitally enhanced six pack in movie. On actor that looks like me... Sharing this stuff makes me deeply uncomfortable. (sarcasm, but not really)
vanjajaja1 2y ago
seems this law has a loophole, since it just bans distributing but not possessing or generating. i imagine people will just distribute the tools to generate instead, which is then a fun re-do of the classic sony drm keys game [1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...
underwater 2y ago
I find it worrying when news outlets publish articles that simply repeat politicians talking points. We all know of laws that say one thing on the tin but are much more draconian in practice. This article fails to analyse the wording of the law, or cover any dissenting opinions. It’s taking the Australian government at face value.
- defrost 2y ago
  Of course the wording isn't given: The attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, is expected to introduce legislation on Wednesday to create a new criminal offence of sharing, without consent, sexually explicit images that have been digitally created using artificial intelligence or other forms of technology. it will be available to all (reporters and the general public alike) once tabled to be considered on Wednesday. After that it will be debated, modified, and have to pass through two houses of government before it becomes "Law" and even then it will still have to pass through the "live testing" of actual charges and a non trivial court case on a real world application.
- zo1 2y ago
  They can be held liable or accountable for interpreting the details of the law incorrectly. This way the only thing they can be wrong for is misquoting what someone else said.
Animats 2y ago
What's the definition? If you generate porn with Stable Diffusion, which generates generic faces, is that a criminal "deep fake"? This is similar to a "right of publicity" law. For those, there has to be an identifiable person who is the victim. Is the law that narrowly drawn?

34 points by smcin 2y ago

- Australia's proposed law criminalizes both creating and sharing (without consent) sexually explicit images that have been digitally created using artificial intelligence or other forms of technology. - Sharing, whether by email or personal message to an individual or to a mass audience on a private or open platform. There are already also laws against it in England and Wales, and ten US states (CA,FL,GA,HI,IL,MN,NY,SD,TX,VA). [0][1] [0]: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2024-01-30/these-states-have-banned-the-type-of-deepfake-porn-that-targeted-taylor-swift https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2024-01-30/... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography#Combatting_deepfake_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography#Combattin...

senectus1 2y ago
>or other forms of technology. Sooooo not JUST AI ? Is this another chink in the wall of "fair use"/"Parody" ?
- fortran77 2y ago
  > Is this another chink in the wall of "fair use"/"parody" ? This is not the United States. There concepts of "fair use" and "Parody" with respect to free speech and copyright laws may not apply. Also, armor has chinks, not walls.
- CJefferson 2y ago
  Do we really need the ability to create sexually explicit pictures of people? No right is absolute, and the reason I think this new law is needed is previously it was extremely difficult to produce photorealistic pictures of people, while now it’s trivial.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    So what if it is possible to generate photorealistic pictures? It’s still just art. An algorithm doesn’t change that.
    - geysersam 2y ago
      People are acting as if it wasn't possible to create realistic looking fake pornography featuring real people before diffusion models. Photoshop's been around for a while.
      - smcin 2y ago
        There is a pretty obvious difference between a) schoolchildren (esp. minors) cyberbullying their classmates/ex-BFs/ex-GFs/relatives/teachers with still images vs b) AI apps/porn sites/ advertisers with $$$ budgets for AI creating lifelike deepfake porn videos of celebrities or user submissions, for profit, intentionally, as a business model. You'd expect the full weight of the proposed Australian law would be used against the latter not the former. Depends how they implement it. Here [0] is a US Politico article on both the explosion of this happening in US schools, and the very fragmented state-level legislative and police response to US cases ("20 states have laws... who gets [/doesn't get] disciplined, how minors are treated and who is responsible for taking images to the police — varies widely depending on the state.") Also, there are obvious civil-liberties privacy considerations (just like the long-running CSAM debate) about who [in Australia] will be mandated to scan users' images: telecomms companies, tech companies, the police or all of these? [0]: Politico: "AI is shockingly good at making fake nudes — and causing havoc in schools" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-schools-states-00160183 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-s...
        paulmd 2y ago
        that's generally the thrust of elvis laws, yes - I'm not sure they're coherent as a concept though. why is elvis impersonation "traditional" in a way that "dolly parton impersonation" is not? and let's not pretend like there wasn't always a significant commercial aspect, the elvis impersonator officiating your wedding wants to get paid.
- anakaine 2y ago
  Australia has fair use copyright provisions, as well as parody. They are not protected via the same mechanism or via the same wording as the US. Now this said, no, this is not another chink in the armour. There is little to no fair use or parody that would withstand prosecution when it comes to deep fake pornography. One could try to make the argument that, for example, a media company may create a deep fake pornographic video for a skit. However, this is both in bad taste, flies afoul of content deceny laws, and the 'artwork' can readily be taken out of context and distributed as pornography in its own right. Australia has been quite good, if a bit slow, at enacting considered legislation to protect against exploitation of the individual. Our conservative facebook and sov cit crowd constantly bellyache about freedom of speech, forgetting that Australia does not have freedom of speech provisions, but rather a set of legal precedents, case law and various legal interpretations which provide similar, but with an ability for interpretation to enact various protections. They're very difficult to circumvent, but are actively used for things like this by governments of the day. Also, unlike the US, our justices are not elected by politicians, and they must not be aligned to a political party. So parliament could go rogue, but the laws would be challenged and shot down if in the opinion of the court they were illegal or eroded other legally decided precedent or interpretations.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > Also, unlike the US, our justices are not elected by politicians I'm pretty sure in practice they are elected by politicians. How do you think they are they appointed? They aren't elected directly and the alternatives I can come up with to political appointment are outrageous affronts to democracy.
    - defrost 2y ago
      In Australian states and in Australian federal courts the process is similar; to become a judge at level {X} there's a merit bar to pass (prior skills | qualifications) and prospective candidates apply for the position when vacancies appear (like other jobs). The applicants are assessed by state or federal peer committees who give advice to state or federal attorney generals (head lawyer) which is a qualified position held by someone who is elected (elected to represent a district, not elected to be attorney general). The Attorney General appoints Judges who apply and are qualified, those appointments can be appealed on various grounds. Eg: In the State of Western Australia: https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Two-new-Judges-appointed-to-bolster-the-District-Court-20230502 https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-La... 2 x District Court judges appointed by Quiggles : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) who's quite the chap, he was a lawyer for the police for a fair while until he turned and gave evidence on police corruption. In the Federal sphere: https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointments https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointme...
- dudeinjapan 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
    lol
- thih9 2y ago
  This would only affect sexually explicit parody / fair use.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Parody means imitation for comedic purposes. There is nothing funny nor fair about creating deep fakes of women and distributing it to fellow students, colleagues etc.
smcin 2y ago
And here's an Australian article from [0], quoting some stats and an Australian academic. I couldn't easily find any legal expert analysis, or the text of the proposed bill. Much Australian media paywalls US search engines, so go read the full article: > Professor Nicola Henry, a socio-legal scholar at RMIT University in Melbourne... ran a survey last year of people who have had fake images shared and found that Australia had far higher rates of victims (3.7%) compared with the global average of 2.2%. Interestingly, her research also found that men were more likely to report being perpetrators as well as victims of deepfake pornography. “Unfortunately, there’s not a huge amount of research that’s been done to examine the extent or the impacts of deepfakes or AI-generated image-based abuse,” Professor Henry added. The government will also bring forward legislation in early August to outlaw the release of private information online with an intent to cause harm, known as doxxing. [0]: https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/six-years-jail-time-under-new-australians-laws-for-ai-porn-spreaders/news-story/e5630b3f9ac71d555fb06b6398369f71 https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/six-years-jail-tim...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

fifteen1506 2y ago

What if it is deepuncertain?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Reminder that deepfake porn is just free speech. Someone expressing things that most people have in their heads, like fantasizing about some celebrity, shouldn’t be illegal. Claiming it’s real should be illegal - but that’s already covered by defamation law.

threeseed 2y ago
As stated in the title this is about distributing content. You are free to produce this content in the comfort of your own home.
- moconnor 2y ago
  At what point does content distribution happen? If someone distributes a seed and prompt that reliably generate a deepfake of a celebrity using open source models and tools, is that covered? This is ultimately about compression, and the famous DeCSS t-shirt and illegal prime number[1]. Not taking a moral position here, but regulating distribution independently of creation for personal consumption seems difficult. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_primes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_prime...
TeMPOraL 2y ago
If so, then maybe it should be defended on accessibility grounds? After all, it could be presented as helping people with aphantasia approximate what people with working visualization ability can literally do in their head. "Undressing someone with your eyes" is, apparently, not a metaphor for some (most?) people.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  > is, apparently, not a metaphor for some (most?) people. I take it you have aphantasia then? I wouldn't say it's "not a metaphor," as it's clearly not literal, but yes, most of the population can see at least faint images in their minds with some effort or when unfocused (daydreaming). The detail of the image and effort required to contruct and maintain it exists on a spectrum. But yes, people with visual imaginations have all "seen" images that have never been physically produced.

sed3 2y ago

> new criminal offence of sharing, without consent, sexually explicit images that have been digitally created using artificial intelligence or other forms of technology. It will be interesting to see how precisely the law is written. If the definition is too broad, it may limit use of soft pornography in advertisement and popular culture. I do not want to see yet another digitally enhanced six pack in movie. On actor that looks like me... Sharing this stuff makes me deeply uncomfortable. (sarcasm, but not really)

vanjajaja1 2y ago

seems this law has a loophole, since it just bans distributing but not possessing or generating. i imagine people will just distribute the tools to generate instead, which is then a fun re-do of the classic sony drm keys game [1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...

underwater 2y ago

I find it worrying when news outlets publish articles that simply repeat politicians talking points. We all know of laws that say one thing on the tin but are much more draconian in practice. This article fails to analyse the wording of the law, or cover any dissenting opinions. It’s taking the Australian government at face value.

defrost 2y ago
Of course the wording isn't given: The attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, is expected to introduce legislation on Wednesday to create a new criminal offence of sharing, without consent, sexually explicit images that have been digitally created using artificial intelligence or other forms of technology. it will be available to all (reporters and the general public alike) once tabled to be considered on Wednesday. After that it will be debated, modified, and have to pass through two houses of government before it becomes "Law" and even then it will still have to pass through the "live testing" of actual charges and a non trivial court case on a real world application.
zo1 2y ago
They can be held liable or accountable for interpreting the details of the law incorrectly. This way the only thing they can be wrong for is misquoting what someone else said.

Animats 2y ago

What's the definition? If you generate porn with Stable Diffusion, which generates generic faces, is that a criminal "deep fake"? This is similar to a "right of publicity" law. For those, there has to be an identifiable person who is the victim. Is the law that narrowly drawn?