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

71–80 of 102 posts

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

#71

Post by verzali »

pjc50 wrote: post #49
miohtama wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Oh they won't. Vance will say a few mean words and threaten to bomb Dublin if anyone lifts a finger against Meta.

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

#72

Post by expedition32 »

immibis wrote: post #59
richwater wrote: post #14

AI is a god send to governments who have been trying to push through censorship laws under the guise of "protecting [people|children|women|etc]"

Hot take that 99% of the world agrees with: Cyberbullying is bad and it's ok to punish cyberbullies.

Nobody likes libertarians and you're beginning to understand why.

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

#73

Post by Ajedi32 »

pjc50 wrote: post #49
miohtama wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What makes you think Meta will do a better job of policing this than the actual police?

Granted, they might be able to crack down harder in some respects since unlike the police they don't have to worry about due process, but is that really "doing a better job" on balance?

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

#75

Post by amiga386 »

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?

Having looked up the text, I can now answer my own questions.

1. As "the production of an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness" is not Illustrator's "primary purpose or function", Adobe are off the hook. So is anyone else if they argue that the "primary purpose or function" is not the production of an individual's photograph, voice, or likeness. So if Grok can be prompted to produce any image, including porn of individuals, provided it's not the primary purpose of Grok, they're untouchable.

2. Even if the bill weren't worded that way, a legal person in Ireland allows for corporate personhood (https://legalguide.ie/corporate-identity/#separate-legal-per...), so Adobe Corporation, as the legal person who "distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service, or device" (Illustrator) would not be subject to "imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years", but it would be subject to "a fine" (maximum amount not specified)

3. Misrepresenting someone or not is irrelevant. The offense is when you either use the depicted person without their consent (regardless of how you represent them) or you intend to harm them (or recklessly don't consider the harm you might cause them), whether you have their consent or not. Harm specifically is {interfering "with the other person’s peace and privacy" or causing "alarm or distress" to them} _AND_ "a reasonable person would realise" that. It would be pretty difficult for a reasonable person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) to think misrepresenting a politician would cause them "alarm or distress" or interfere with their "peace and privacy", so you'd probably be fine producing images of politician XYZ saying they hate freedom, want to take your guns away, eat babies, etc., as they get that day-in, day-out and it hasn't stopped them yet.

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

#76

Post by amiga386 »

dmurray wrote: post #69
pjc50 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There hasn't been a debate. The headline is not reflective of the facts. There hasn't been any agreement to fast track this bill, but the politician sponsoring it has said in a radio interview that (surprise!) he thinks it should be fast tracked. The Dáil record can be found here, but there's nothing of interest in it: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/search/?searchType=debates&deba...

Oh for fuck's sake.

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

TFA: "Calls to fast track Bill to criminalise harmful misuse of someone’s voice or image"

Call to action. Not action. And the call is coming from the bill's proposer! He would say that, wouldn't he? But what matters is if the actual government takes that bill further. If they don't, we don't need to care about what this guy thinks.

HN headline (possibly an earlier headline of TFA) is fundamentally misrepresenting the situation.

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

#77

Post by Nextgrid »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #73
pjc50 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What makes you think Meta will do a better job of policing this than the actual police? Granted, they might be able to crack down harder in some respects since unlike the police they don't have to worry about due process, but is that really "doing a better job" on balance?

The police doesn't have access to all the data for starters. Meta does.

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

#78

Post by nerdralph »

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.

As a common-law legal system, I would expect Ireland to have something similar to Canada's Criminal Code identity fraud.

    403 (1) Everyone commits an offence who fraudulently personates another person, living or dead,

        (a) with intent to gain advantage for themselves or another person;

        (b) with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property;

        (c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person being personated or another person; or

        (d) with intent to avoid arrest or prosecution or to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.

    Marginal note:Clarification

    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), personating a person includes pretending to be the person or using the person’s identity information — whether by itself or in combination with identity information pertaining to any person — as if it pertains to the person using it.

    Marginal note:Punishment

    (3) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1)

        (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

        (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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

#79

Post by simion314 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #73
pjc50 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What makes you think Meta will do a better job of policing this than the actual police? Granted, they might be able to crack down harder in some respects since unlike the police they don't have to worry about due process, but is that really "doing a better job" on balance?

>What makes you think Meta will do a better job of policing this than the actual police?

Meta announce they will stop political/electoral advertising in EU, so this ios proof that Meta can do but we need to foce them to act, otherwise Meta makes money from all the scams in the ads that are published, in fact I remember Meta looked into the scam problem and decided to stop looking sicne solving the problem would reduce their profits.

Now in case all those well paid engineers at Meta can't find a solution here is an idea I had just by thinking at it for a few seconds, those geniuses shoudl be able to find better ones if they want.

1 when a scam ad is reported block that account and their ads

2 before the ad is published have an AI scan it, if it looks to be related to politics, crypto or other scam friendly domains have someone review it . do not allow fresh accounts to publish this kind of shit without a human review

3 for Facebook content when someone shares fake shiot, like a proven fake document, or scam or faked video block the account and then notify all the people that liked or shared the scam that they were scammed/tricked ... when your users will get 10 daily notifications "You are an idiot you shared this fake shit" you might realize you should do something about scams or users will stop engaging with your stuff.

I am talking here about proveable scams and fakes , so not about some gray area. I mean scams, faked videos/images/documents etc

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

#80

Post by Ajedi32 »

Nextgrid wrote: post #77
Ajedi32 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think Meta will do a better job of policing this than the actual police? Granted, they might be able to crack down harder in some respects since unlike the police they don't have to worry about due process, but is that really "doing a better job" on balance?

The police doesn't have access to all the data for starters. Meta does.

These are public posts we're talking about, right? Or are we saying Meta should be cracking down on content in private communication too? (And if so, isn't that the same concern I just mentioned about due process, but for privacy instead?)
Post reply on HN