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

81–90 of 102 posts

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

#81

Post by wasabi991011 »

amiga386 wrote: post #76
dmurray wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

You can email the mod team with this explanation and get them to change the title.

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

#82

Post by Nextgrid »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #80
Nextgrid wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

If we're talking about profiting from fraud, then we're talking ads. Which are semi-public, you only see them if you fall within the targeting bucket, which definitely wouldn't include "law enforcement officer".

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

#83

Post by pjc50 »

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?

Banning some fraudulent advertising is doing a better job than leaving it up, yes.

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

#84

Post by cmxch »

piltdownman wrote: post #7
belorn wrote: post #2

How does the law distinguish itself from anti-harassment laws? I recall a old lawsuit (not sure which country) where a student had photoshopped a nude body onto a picture of their teacher and given it to other students. The main question in the case was if this qualified as sexual harassment, even if the teacher in question never received the image. I don't remember the outcome, through I think they were found guilty…

The cynic in me assumes its a way of establishing criminal liability on social media platforms for deepfakes impacting politicians credibility - striking while the Grok is still hot as it were.

If they’re fine with targeting BlueSky for the same reasons, then by all means let the law be.

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

#85

Post by cmxch »

ozlikethewizard wrote: post #24

The UK is considering an injunction to have Grok and potentially X banned until this issue is resolved. I'm no huge fan of state intervention, particularly my state which is notoriously over zealous, prudish, and subtly authoritarian. The sweeping changes were seeing in the UK are somewhat reminiscent of the old "First they came for the trade unionists" poem, and there certainly has been many of us speaking out again…

Except that the UK is just laundering authoritarianism through a clause that selectively harms one organization and not all of those that have platforms with the same problem.

Given the UK’s already high authoritarian tendencies towards speech codes, it would be better to have the US sanction Kier Starmer, OFCOM, and other associated parties in the Commonwealth, narrowly specified.

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

#86

Post by Amezarak »

pjc50 wrote: post #47
Amezarak wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Arresting someone without that being widely reported has historically resulted in substantial harm - it's called "disappearing" someone.

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

#87

Post by favorited »

CatMustard wrote: post #58
joelccr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It also helps that Bill is not a common name here at all (the only Bill I've ever met in my life was an American). I can imagine how confusing it would be if all instances of the word Bill in articles such as these were replaced with Seán lol.

Bill is typically not a given name at all, but rather a nickname for someone named William (William -> Will -> Bill).

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

#88

Post by ryoshoe »

Amezarak wrote: post #86
pjc50 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Arresting someone without that being widely reported has historically resulted in substantial harm - it's called "disappearing" someone.

The news typically reports arrests based on information provided by a government, but if people are being disappeared by the government you can't really rely on the truth of that info

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

#89

Post by Teever »

piltdownman wrote: post #41
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.

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...

Sounds like a criminal conspiracy between the psuedo-anonymous users and Facebook.

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

#90

Post by extraduder_ire »

nickdothutton wrote: post #28

What is the succinct definition of "harmful"?

Section 2, subsection 2 of the Bill describes it.

    (2) : For the purposes of subsection (1), a person causes harm to another person where—
    (a) he or she, by his or her acts, intentionally or recklessly seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person, and


    (b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other person’s peace and privacy or cause alarm or distress to the other person.
Post reply on HN