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

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#81

Post by whenchamenia » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

moate wrote: post #16

tptacek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, the entire point of Hustler v Falwell was that no reasonable person could have believed the Hustler piece was anything but satire, while the whole point of a "deep fake" is that the opposite is meant to be true. It's very strange to argue that deepfake revenge porn is in any way comparable to Hustler v Falwell; it seems like you'd have to be almost totally unfamiliar with that case – or with deepfakes, or w…

Or arguing in bad faith because you just think people should always be able to "say" whatever they want whenever they want because slippery slope >> thought police >> being an asshole sends you to jail.

Freedom of speech, should apply reguardless of good faith. Who would you have draw the line?

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#82

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:40 AM UTC

justforyou wrote: post #75

tptacek wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't even cohere as an argument. The "absolutely perfect fake" you're referring to was a parody (print) Campari ad with nothing but a headshot of Falwell and an "interview" that opened with "My first time was in an outhouse outside Lynchburg, Virginia"; "Wasn't it a little cramped?"; "Not after I kicked the goat out". A deepfake uses GANs to synthesize a convincing video of its subject, something that wasn't…

I think the point that sandworm101 is trying to make is that for the medium, it was a perfect fake. One could make the argument that due to the ubiquity of photoshop and "shooped memes," the fact that both livestreamers and TV networks regularly employ digital makeup filters, and the continued press that deepfake technology recieves -- there is no reason for any reasonable person to assume any piece digial media hasn…

One could make all sorts of arguments, but in fact a spoof print ad for Campari and a deep fake video are not the same thing. In particular, the law does not operate based on the kinds of logic that prevails on message boards, as the previous commenter, a lawyer, must know.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#83

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 2:15 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #27

tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes; this is basic enough to be in the syllabus for the case: Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without sho…

Thank you for posting that. I’m not sure I ever fully grok’d the “outrageousness” standard. So if you say something horrible about a public figure, knowing that it is false, and presenting it as true, if it’s outrageous enough to be obvious parody then it’s permitted. But if it’s stated as truth and emphatically presented as truthful and not as parody, then the public figure exception is lost? Very hard not to wade i…

[deleted]

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#84

Post by dang » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 2:29 AM UTC

whenchamenia wrote: post #80

stale2002 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harrassment is a crime in most places. It doesnt really fall under free speech.

But your post makes me feel genearlly harassed, how can I know when I am just uncomfortable or annoyed?

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#85

Post by pvg » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 3:06 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #82

justforyou wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point that sandworm101 is trying to make is that for the medium, it was a perfect fake. One could make the argument that due to the ubiquity of photoshop and "shooped memes," the fact that both livestreamers and TV networks regularly employ digital makeup filters, and the continued press that deepfake technology recieves -- there is no reason for any reasonable person to assume any piece digial media hasn…

One could make all sorts of arguments, but in fact a spoof print ad for Campari and a deep fake video are not the same thing. In particular, the law does not operate based on the kinds of logic that prevails on message boards, as the previous commenter, a lawyer, must know.

In fairness, "a fake so perfect, you can't tell it's fake (other than by its content)" is the work of a trained professional. Few among us message board amateurs so effortlessly reach for the sublime.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#86

Post by TomMckenny » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 3:09 AM UTC

User23 wrote: post #78

TomMckenny wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law Actually I wonder where this family ideas come from. There must be some engine promulgating the bizarre notion that the only real rights are property rights and all others must derive from them or be dismissed.

That engine is libertarianism, which is basically just objectivism that isn't firing on all cylinders. This post is not an endorsement of objectivism by the way, both are ludicrous. Taleb nailed this: there is no single perfect scale-independent political philosophy. A quick pass at what I prefer at various scales: Family: Something a lot like Communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his ne…

It's interesting that the first two seem to be more or less universally implemented through out the world. Although the neighbor level seems to be "leave each other alone including territoriality but aid in the event of emergency".

It's interesting that many of the most notorious times are when that neighborhood level breaks down: Moments of extremely intrusive totalitarianism such as the European witch trials, China's cultural revolution, cults.

It's also interesting that people seem to naturally form similar organization up to the neighbor sized groups but above that anything can happen. I'm guessing this is the result of evolving in essentially neighborhood sized groups. I suspect there is something useful to be found in this stuff.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#87

Post by dahart » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 4:45 AM 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.

Freedom of speech is not absolute in the U.S., and never has been. There’s a fairly long list of boundary lines that are not protected and can get you in trouble if you cross them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

> 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?

Maybe the same reason the state stops you from hitting or shooting people? Turn that around - why shouldn’t someone stop you from doing something mean, degrading or damaging to someone else publicly?

We could discuss reasons why or why not, but that would also be beside the point. The current law defines illegal speech to include a whole bunch of things your nasty picture might constitute: the harm principle, the offense principle, libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, incitement, fighting words, right to privacy, and public security, just to name a few.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#88

Post by nitrogen » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 5:10 AM UTC

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…

> ...with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates...

This part matters

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#89

Post by jakobegger » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 6:03 AM UTC

zzo38computer wrote: post #51

curryst wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As long as it includes a disclaimer that it is a fake (even though it appears to be a real photograph), I do not complain about it, because I like freedom of speech.

Disclaimers are useless because people strip them when they repost the image

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#90

Post by AstralStorm » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 7:10 AM UTC

jakobegger wrote: post #89

zzo38computer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it includes a disclaimer that it is a fake (even though it appears to be a real photograph), I do not complain about it, because I like freedom of speech.

Disclaimers are useless because people strip them when they repost the image

Make stripping disclaimers illegal? Like stripping copyright claims. Removing the disclaimers is in most cases breaking copyright anyway. It does not count as a remix. It does not count as a quotation and definitely not as archival.

That bit is easy to detect most of the time...