Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia • Hacker News Board

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#41

Post by adamlett » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:11 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #35

tptacek wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not at all the case, no. If you use extraordinary new computing facilities to create a convincing facsimile of a public person having sex with someone else on camera, you're very unlikely to skate on the "reasonable person" standard. I remain interested in how familiar you are with deepfake technology, because it is nothing at all like the Falwell parody in Hustler or the porn parody film you just cited.

I am well aware of what can be done having once worked in film/TV production. But the quality of the fake is irrelevant. Falwell involved an absolutely perfect fake. It was a text interview. There was nothing in the interview, beyond the nature of the content, that suggested it wasn't real. They even used his real face in the portrait. Surely more than a few people fell for the gag. The parallels to a modern deepfake…

But the quality of the fake is irrelevant.

According to whom?

Falwell involved an absolutely perfect fake

If that were true, written accounts would be as video when used as evidence in a court of law. You may be surprised to learn that this is not in fact the case.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#42

Post by DuskStar » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

solotronics wrote: post #39

pfisch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram. Probably legal. It is satire meant to be political commentary. Not distributed with the intent to "coerce, harass, or intimidate" As for the other ones idk, probably illegal. The last one almost certainly is, and honestly it probably should be.

Why? I thought we had freedom of speech in the US. If I want to draw a picture of you doing something nasty and post it to my own website why should the state stop me?

> I thought we had freedom of speech in the US.

Because thanks to some puritanical supreme court rulings over the past century or so, freedom of speech doesn't cover things considered 'obscene'. This has been variously interpreted to include pornography, information on birth control and abortion, and a variety of other things.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#43

Post by davesmith1983 » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

pfisch wrote: post #36

apo wrote: post #33

> The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent —often called revenge porn —as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The new bill updated the law by adding a category of "falsely created videographic or still image" to the text. This is a strange law: > Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates o…

> A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram. Probably legal. It is satire meant to be political commentary. Not distributed with the intent to "coerce, harass, or intimidate" As for the other ones idk, probably illegal. The last one almost certainly is, and honestly it probably should be.

[dead]

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#44

Post by adamlett » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

0815test wrote: post #19

adamlett wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That involved a fake interview with Falwell published in Hustler. I don't see how that is legally distinct from putting his face on a body double What I understood from recently rewatching The People vs Larry Flynt was that LF and Hustler magazine were acquitted because nobody would reasonably believe that Jerry Falwell had actually had sex with his mother. It seems evident that the material difference between that c…

One could definitely use "deepfake" tech to make transparently-untrue and highly fanciful depictions/parodies though. It's not so much about the technology itself as how it gets used.

It’s both. If there was a way to state the law in such a way that it was always clear when and how to apply it, there would be no need for courts and judges.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#45

Post by stickydink » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

asveikau wrote: post #40

apo wrote: post #33

> The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent —often called revenge porn —as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The new bill updated the law by adding a category of "falsely created videographic or still image" to the text. This is a strange law: > Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates o…

> A kid I think we can probably agree kids would be wise to avoid doing the specific things you mentioned. But importantly, when a kid breaks a law there is typically a separate system for juveniles...

There's a separate system for how it's responded to, but the same laws apply, and the same act remains illegal

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#46

Post by curryst » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

solotronics wrote: post #39

pfisch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram. Probably legal. It is satire meant to be political commentary. Not distributed with the intent to "coerce, harass, or intimidate" As for the other ones idk, probably illegal. The last one almost certainly is, and honestly it probably should be.

Why? I thought we had freedom of speech in the US. If I want to draw a picture of you doing something nasty and post it to my own website why should the state stop me?

IANAL, but at least for images that are designed to appear to be, or likely to be perceived as, a real photograph, it strikes me as comparable to libel or slander. To me, the distinction is whether a viewer is likely to interpret the image as satire or general humor, or if they are likely to believe that it is genuine photographic evidence of a compromising event. Satire and humor are protected

You drawing a picture is unlikely to pass that muster. Deepfakes, on the other hand, are generally designed to be falsified images.

I think the interpretation of this will lean heavily on being able to prove intent.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#47

Post by jsnider3 » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

There's a good chance that this law is unconstitutional, but I doubt anyone wants to be the first to test their luck in court.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#48

Post by LAMike » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

For everyone saying this is a violation of the 1st amendment -

The 1st only extends to what you can say on your personal property.

There is a reason you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, it's because you are infringing on the property rights of the people who bought a ticket to the movie, and the landloard who is expected to keep everyone safe.

You don't have any property rights to any other human other than your own body by default.

That being said, the future will be filled with AR glasses with the nude version on default and that's going to be very weird.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#49

Post by donatj » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

LAMike wrote: post #48

For everyone saying this is a violation of the 1st amendment - The 1st only extends to what you can say on your personal property . There is a reason you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, it's because you are infringing on the property rights of the people who bought a ticket to the movie, and the landloard who is expected to keep everyone safe. You don't have any property rights to any other human other than y…

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not.

Nothing about what you said is correct. The FIRE in a crowded theater argument has nothing to do with property rights. It's about creating dangerous situations.

Deep fakes aren't infringing anyone else's property rights, other than maybe very tenuously arguably considering likeness "intellectual property".

In the United States however you have no expectation of privacy in public, so a photograph taken of you in public is fair game. See: Paparazzi

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#50

Post by cjensen » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

LAMike wrote: post #48

For everyone saying this is a violation of the 1st amendment - The 1st only extends to what you can say on your personal property . There is a reason you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, it's because you are infringing on the property rights of the people who bought a ticket to the movie, and the landloard who is expected to keep everyone safe. You don't have any property rights to any other human other than y…

Your comment is almost entirely wrong.

"Fire in a crowded theater" is trope which means the First Amendment does not protect speech that is very likely going to cause imminent harm. It has nothing whatsoever to do with property rights. It is a "trope" because in rhetoric, it almost always used incorrectly to justify First Amendment exceptions which have nothing to do with imminent harm.

Also, in the US, if you are in public a photographer can take a photo of you and publish it. You have no "property rights" over the photo whatsoever.