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

Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#71

Post by TomMckenny »

randallsquared wrote: post #69
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 consistency. It just doesn't apply to actually existing law.

So they will return North America to the Indians?

And antebellum mansions to the descendants of the slaves who built them?

Perhaps it is merely a _claim_ of consistency just convoluted enough that those who are advantaged by the ideology can jump on board.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#72

Post by ThrustVectoring »

chrshawkes wrote: post #58
pretendscholar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

slander is not a crime

Libel is illegal and in the same category.

It's a tort, not a crime. The individual you defamed can sue you in civil court over the damage you do to their reputation, but the US government can't prosecute you for it.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#73

Post by ThrustVectoring »

mjevans wrote: post #21

Shouldn't this already be covered by defamation and/or laws related to truth in marketing?

Yeah, this clearly counts as defamation in my opinion. It'd be difficult to prove damages, though, so it's unlikely to ever come to trial. Adding this as a category of per se defamation so that plaintiffs no longer need to prove economic harm from it seems like the natural solution to me.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#74

Post by [deleted] »

pfisch wrote: post #36
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…

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#75

Post by justforyou »

tptacek wrote: post #57
sandworm101 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am well aware of what can be done having once worked in film/TV production. But the quality of the fake is irrelevant. Falwell involved an absolutely perfect fake. It was a text interview. There was nothing in the interview, beyond the nature of the content, that suggested it wasn't real. They even used his real face in the portrait. Surely more than a few people fell for the gag. The parallels to a modern deepfake…

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't been substantially altered...

(especially now that the term "fake news" has become a tumour on our lexicon)

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#76

Post by thrwayxyz »

chrshawkes wrote: post #59
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are legally allowed to yell "FIRE" in a movie theater. The idea you're not is a myth from a early 1900s supreme court ruling. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

Especially if there is a fire, what're you supposed to yell?

Endless war is a mistake. Which is what people were arrested for in that case.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#77

Post by User23 »

cjensen wrote: post #50
LAMike wrote: post #48

For everyone saying this is a violation of the 1st amendment - The 1st only extends to what you can say on your personal property . There is a reason you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, it's because you are infringing on the property rights of the people who bought a ticket to the movie, and the landloard who is expected to keep everyone safe. You don't have any property rights to any other human other than y…

Your comment is almost entirely wrong. "Fire in a crowded theater" is trope which means the First Amendment does not protect speech that is very likely going to cause imminent harm. It has nothing whatsoever to do with property rights. It is a "trope" because in rhetoric, it almost always used incorrectly to justify First Amendment exceptions which have nothing to do with imminent harm. Also, in the US, if you are in…

> Also, in the US, if you are in public a photographer can take a photo of you and publish it. You have no "property rights" over the photo whatsoever.

Not a lawyer, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you have the right to prevent your image from being used to endorse a product without your permission.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#78

Post by User23 »

TomMckenny wrote: post #53
donatj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. Nothing about what you said is correct. The FIRE in a crowded theater argument has nothing to do with property rights. It's about creating dangerous situations. Deep fakes aren't infringing anyone else's property rights, other than maybe very tenuously arguably considering likeness "intellectual property". In the United States however you have no expectation of privacy in public…

>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 need). Neighborhood: Libertarianism (mutal respect for property boundaries and common spaces). City/Town: Democracy. State: Republic. Federal: Federal Republic.

Obviously these are just my preferences, although I think the family level one is virtually universal among people who want their families to succeed. The point isn't that I'm right or wrong about any level, it's that different systems are optimal for different scales.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#79

Post by stale2002 »

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?

Harrassment is a crime in most places.

It doesnt really fall under free speech.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#80

Post by whenchamenia »

stale2002 wrote: post #79
solotronics wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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?
Post reply on HN