Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

irishtimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

#41

Post by piltdownman »

miohtama wrote: post #10
piltdownman wrote: post #6

So the actual context of this is a long-standing feud between Meta and our elected representatives (and some prominent media figures) regarding social engineering scam ads. You've probably seen some variant of it - a 1:1 copy of a reputable newsoutlet - in this case The Irish Independent, The Irish Times, RTÉ or Newstalk - with a purported video from our Prime Minister or similar which leads to a crypto-trading or fo…

The existing fraud and advertising laws cover these kind of scams. Because the bottleneck is enforcement, adding new laws won't make the world safer.

Except they don't - enforcement is circumvented by psuedo-anonymous users pushing illegal ad campaigns that revert back to inoffensive content or a similar cop-out by the time Meta/X responds to the report

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/despicable-simon-harri...

https://www.reddit.com/r/irishpolitics/comments/1i1shz3/anyo...

Re: Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

#42

Post by amiga386 »

sollewitt wrote: post #16
john-h-k wrote: post #12

> knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes ... an individual’s name, photograph ... without the individual’s prior consent ... and being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person. > [harm occurs when someone] seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person This seems very widely worded. A newspaper publishing the n…

Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent. It doesn’t constrain what you do in contexts other than where you use someone’s likeness to misrepresent their position. The harms are restricted to the scope above.

So if I draw a caricature of a politician in Illustrator, then Adobe goes to prison?

What if I draw a caricature of my own friends, in Illustrator, without first getting their consent? Does Adobe go to prison?

What if I captioned my illustration with my friend saying "It's my round!" (which is misrepresenting their position because it's never their bloody round), would Adobe go to prison then?

Re: Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

#43

Post by joelccr »

rob74 wrote: post #27

"Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse" - now that's some strange capitalis/zation in that headline. I'm Ok with title case, but randomly capitalising just one word in a title looks strange. Or is this something specifically Irish?

I can't speak for Ireland, but in the UK it is quite common to refer to a Bill (before it has passed) or an Act (when it is passed) with a capital letter, rightly or wrongly, because its name would be capitalised (in this case The Protection of Voice and Image Bill, with Bill replaced by Act once it has become law).

It is also a capitalised term within the text of the law itself.

Re: Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

#44

Post by allturtles »

john-h-k wrote: post #12

> knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes ... an individual’s name, photograph ... without the individual’s prior consent ... and being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person. > [harm occurs when someone] seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person This seems very widely worded. A newspaper publishing the n…

AFAICT this is the actual bill: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2025/11/eng/in...

Your selective quoting is extremely misleading. The first section about publishing a name/photograph only applies in the context of "for purposes of advertising products, events, political activities, merchandise, goods, or services or for purposes of fundraising, solicitation of donations, purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services or to influence elections or referenda." i.e. it's illegal to pretend someone is endorsing something they are not.

Re: Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

#45

Post by kelseyfrog »

amiga386 wrote: post #42
sollewitt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent. It doesn’t constrain what you do in contexts other than where you use someone’s likeness to misrepresent their position. The harms are restricted to the scope above.

So if I draw a caricature of a politician in Illustrator, then Adobe goes to prison? What if I draw a caricature of my own friends, in Illustrator, without first getting their consent? Does Adobe go to prison? What if I captioned my illustration with my friend saying "It's my round!" (which is misrepresenting their position because it's never their bloody round), would Adobe go to prison then?

No, there is currently no method to imprison Adobe nor any other company.

Re: Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

#46

Post by nemomarx »

mystraline wrote: post #22

Sure, its a proposed law for citizens of this country. So, how's that going to work out with Indian, Pakistani, North Korean, or similar locations using voice spoofing? Thats right. None.

It seems to target the technology they'd be using - so the voice software might be liable, or the platform they use to convey the scam?

Re: Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

#47

Post by pjc50 »

Amezarak wrote: post #17
sallveburrpi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress. Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already Otherwise I ag…

> Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the government have to publicize the names and identities of people they arrest so we know they're not doing so illegitimately?

Publishing the name of someone arrested and then later released without charge could constitute harm to them, even if you make it theoretically illegal to discriminate against them on that basis.

The US use of mugshots is exploitative.

Re: Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

#48

Post by JohnMakin »

orwin wrote: post #18
john-h-k wrote: post #12

> knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes ... an individual’s name, photograph ... without the individual’s prior consent ... and being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person. > [harm occurs when someone] seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person This seems very widely worded. A newspaper publishing the n…

A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress If the suspected criminal isn't a public figure, it's a good thing, isn't it?

What if they are not guilty?

Re: Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

#49

Post by pjc50 »

miohtama wrote: post #10
piltdownman wrote: post #6

So the actual context of this is a long-standing feud between Meta and our elected representatives (and some prominent media figures) regarding social engineering scam ads. You've probably seen some variant of it - a 1:1 copy of a reputable newsoutlet - in this case The Irish Independent, The Irish Times, RTÉ or Newstalk - with a purported video from our Prime Minister or similar which leads to a crypto-trading or fo…

The existing fraud and advertising laws cover these kind of scams. Because the bottleneck is enforcement, adding new laws won't make the world safer.

This is only going to change if prosecution is brought against Meta itself, which it looks like the "recklessly" clause is intended to imply. I look forward to Meta facing criminal charges for profiting from fraud.

What's the Irish equivalent of Hansard, by the way? Can we look up the debate?

Re: Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse

#50

Post by pjc50 »

orwin wrote: post #18
john-h-k wrote: post #12

> knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes ... an individual’s name, photograph ... without the individual’s prior consent ... and being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person. > [harm occurs when someone] seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person This seems very widely worded. A newspaper publishing the n…

A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress If the suspected criminal isn't a public figure, it's a good thing, isn't it?

If you've published it in a newspaper, now they're a public figure!
Post reply on HN