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

21–30 of 102 posts

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

#21

Post by enragedcacti »

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…

Any time you are reading a law, especially one from another jurisdiction, you have to be very careful to consider that there may be terms with a legal or common law definition that you don't understand. In this case, "reckless" seems to be a well defined term with a fair amount of case law behind it. To my untrained eye it seems like a newspaper would be well within their rights to publish harmful information as long as they avoid "a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk".

https://www.studocu.com/en-ie/document/university-college-du...

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

#23

Post by orwin »

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 a name and publishing a likeness is very different.

Especially if the person arrested is accused of immoral acts. In my country we have a very known story from 25 years ago where 18 persons were accused of being pedocriminals. Their faces blasted everywhere, on first page of most journals, on the TV... It turns out 13 of them weren't guilty at all. Issues with psychological pressure on the children and a lot of mistakes made life hell for the accused and ultimately innocent, people, most of them lost part of their life because of that.

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

#24

Post by ozlikethewizard »

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 against the attacks on freedom to protest and expression here.

However, when you swap out trade unionists for "People comitting sexual harassment", "Paedophiles", and "Billionaires", Im somewhat more inclined to side with the government on this. Were already way down the slippery slope, at least some genuinely bad actors are catching some flak this time I guess.

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

#26

Post by orwin »

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.

I think YouTube and meta (Instagram and Facebook) will be hit as hard, or even harder, because of the numbers of scam ads using likeness. It will make them liable from publishing scam ads (which, to be clear, should already be in the DMA)

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

#27

Post by rob74 »

"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?

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

#29

Post by Gormo »

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.

> 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.

This sounds like it would effectively ban photography in public places. Or at least ban the manufacture/sale of cameras or software that takes photos.

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

#30

Post by saubeidl »

mikeyouse wrote: post #13
0ckpuppet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who decides what is harmful? That's going to be like letting a Bible thumping Moral Majority zealot decide what's Art and what's pornography.

And under which jurisdiction is this going to be prosecuted? So some random Nazi on Twitter makes CSAM of an Irish actress - is Musk going to comply with the subpoena to help the Irish authorities find the user? He’s already said he won’t be punishing users for ‘free speech’ as he defines it.. so then what?

Then we prosecute Musk.
Post reply on HN